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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful constraint — the scan must have been started in the same MCP session — which is genuine context beyond the schema. It says nothing about error behavior (e.g., what happens for an out-of-session or expired scanId), permissions, or the shape of the returned observation limits.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, and the session-scoping constraint is placed up front. It is efficient, though the dense Korean phrasing with an undefined term ('관찰 한계') costs some clarity.

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 one-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description does at least state what is returned (results plus observation limits). It remains thin on failure modes and does not resolve what the observation limits represent, leaving a retrieval tool only minimally specified.

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%, but the single parameter is fully constrained structurally (uuid type, format, regex pattern), so much of the semantics is machine-readable. The description adds only an indirect hint that the scanId originates from a scan started in the same session; it does not explain the parameter beyond that.

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 gives a verb (조회/retrieve) and a resource (검사 결과 results and 관찰 한계 observation limits), which is more than a restatement of the title. However, the scope clause '같은 MCP 세션에서 시작한' does the differentiating work implicitly rather than naming how it differs from vibe_doctor_start_scan or vibe_doctor_explain_finding, and '관찰 한계' is not defined.

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 phrase '같은 MCP 세션에서 시작한' hints at a precondition (the scan must originate in the same MCP session), which is the closest thing to usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no mention of the sibling tools as alternatives.

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