run_wstg_test

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is an active scan against a live target requiring prior authorization, and that the tool can re-run an existing check, but it says nothing about rate limits, timeouts, whether results are persisted as findings, or side effects on the target.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by an ordered parameter guide, a single example, and a closing security constraint. The emoji section headers and the example (which only restates two params already explained) add some noise, but the overall length is justified by the 0% schema coverage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the four parameters are all covered. The remaining gaps are the two unlisted enum codes and the lack of guidance on how this differs from the pipeline/catalog siblings, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: all four parameters are explained, the wstg_code enum is expanded into human-readable test names, and the data_sensitivity levels are given purpose ('nhân hệ số rủi ro tính Severity'). The enum list is incomplete though — WSTG-INFO-03 and WSTG-INFO-04 exist in the schema but are absent from the description, leaving two valid values unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb pair ('thực thi hoặc kiểm thử lại' / execute or re-test) on a single, granular resource (one WSTG check code), which is clearly distinguishable from the batch sibling run_pentest_pipeline. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with browse_wstg_catalog or the pipeline tool, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Mục tiêu BẮT BUỘC phải được cấp phép trước qua manage_scope_targets'), which tells the agent what to call first, plus a concrete worked example. It stops short of saying when to prefer this single-check dispatcher over run_pentest_pipeline or browse_wstg_catalog, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.