Sn1per status

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real value by enumerating the response contents (which matters for a tool with no output schema) and by explaining that a disabled-scan state comes with a reason. 'Read-only; sends no network traffic' mostly restates readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, so it is incremental rather than fully additive.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the purpose and enumerates the payload, the second carries the invocation rule and safety note. The long enumeration is justified because no output schema exists to describe the return shape.

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 no params, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what will be returned, when to call it, when to call it again, and that it performs no scanning itself.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by presenting the tool as a self-contained status report.

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 ('Report') and enumerates concretely what it reports: edition/engine version, scan-enabled state and reasons, scan modes with activity class, target scope, concurrency, redaction/audit, plugins. This is clearly distinct from siblings like scan_status (per-scan) and the get_* findings tools, so an agent can route without opening the 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?

Gives explicit sequencing and re-invocation guidance: 'Call this first, and again whenever a scan is refused.' That is strong when-to-use guidance tied to a concrete failure signal. It does not name an alternative or a when-not condition, so it stops just short of the top band.

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