start_scan

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

Description discloses that the scan '真实探测' (actually probes) target hosts, implying active scanning. It details what each scan type does (ports, services, vulnerabilities) and approximate durations. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it addresses this reasonably well.

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?

Description is well-structured with sections, bullet points, and bold labels. It is informative without being verbose. Every sentence adds value. However, it is bilingual (Chinese primary) which may slightly reduce conciseness for English agents.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the action, parameters, and scan types adequately. However, it lacks guidance on prerequisites or potential side effects (e.g., network impact).

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds significant value by explaining each scan_type value (quick, standard, deep) with details on port ranges, vulnerability checks, and time estimates, which goes beyond the schema's simple enum labels.

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?

Description clearly states it starts a vulnerability scan on a target, with three specific scan modes (quick, standard, deep). It distinguishes from siblings like scan_host_ports (which focuses only on ports) and list_scans (which lists scans). The verb '启动' (start) and resource '漏洞扫描任务' (vulnerability scan task) are specific.

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?

Description provides detailed guidance on when to use each scan type (quick for fast checks, standard for vulnerability detection, deep for full coverage) with approximate durations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like scan_host_ports for pure port scanning.

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