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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination behavior and the meaning of the returned segments, but discloses no additional operational traits such as result limits, ordering, or cost. Modest added value over the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the core filter and scope are front-loaded, followed by pagination and the scan_id format. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, filtering, and all parameters. It is nearly complete, only lacking explicit routing versus the sibling segment tools.

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 carries the full burden, and it does explain all four parameters: scan_id is a ScanMalware UUID, min_code_length is a lower bound, and limit/offset drive pagination. It compensates well, though it omits default behavior (e.g., what happens when limit is null).

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 (List) and resource (JavaScript code segments) scoped to one scan, with the defining filter 'match no known library'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_js_segments_by_scan and get_js_segments_suspicious without opening any schema.

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?

The description gives useful interpretation of the results ('usually the page's own or a kit's code'), which implies when this tool is interesting, but it never states when to prefer it over the sibling segment tools or any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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