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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that tests are 'queued' and that it returns a workflow ID and list of queued runs, which gives useful behavioral insight. However, it does not explain permissions, potential side effects on the target, or what a 'scan workflow' entails beyond queuing, leaving gaps.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: what it does, how it behaves, and what it returns.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger action, queuing behavior, and return values. It does not elaborate on the scan workflow concept or edge cases like disabled tests, but it provides enough information for correct invocation and expectation of results.

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?

The schema fully describes the only parameter 'targetId' as 'The target ID to scan'. The description reinforces that the target is the one whose test profile is used but adds no new syntax or format details beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states 'Run all enabled tests against a target as a scan workflow', specifying the action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'trigger_test' by indicating this triggers all tests in the target's test profile, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for running all enabled tests as a scan workflow, implying it is the bulk-action alternative to single-test triggers. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the top score.

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