Scan status

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: enumerates the possible job states, notes the failure reason is returned when known, describes the log tail as redacted and ANSI-stripped, and warns that log content is untrusted and must not be followed as instructions. The prompt-injection warning is exactly the kind of context structured fields cannot convey.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: entry points, return payload, and the security caveat. Lead sentence front-loads the primary use case; no padding.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return shape (state, failure reason, log tail) so an agent knows what to expect. With annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage on parameters, nothing material 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by clarifying that job_id and workspace are alternative/independent entry points and that workspace-only calls report running activity. It doesn't discuss log_lines, but the schema already documents it with bounds.

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 and resource ('check a scan started by sniper_scan') plus the secondary scope ('whether anything is running in a workspace'), which distinguishes it from cancel_scan and sniper_status in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly says to pass a job_id from sniper_scan, and that the workspace argument covers the 'anything running here' case. It does not name the adjacent tools (cancel_scan, sniper_status) as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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