scan_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that live execution happens in a Docker sandbox and that the target always runs sandboxed, which is real safety context. It omits side-effect/read-write profile, auth or permission needs, and what a scan actually does to the target beyond execution.

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, front-loaded with the core action and layers, then the optional path and return. Nearly every clause earns its place; the parenthetical about dynamic is slightly redundant with the schema but reads naturally.

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 3-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what gets scanned and that findings are returned but leaves the return shape and safety profile thin. 'Returns the findings' is a placeholder rather than a useful expectation-setter.

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 100%, so target, dynamic, and timeout are already documented in the schema; the description only restates dynamic's behavior ('optionally, dynamic=True'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the parameter work.

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 ('Scan') and resource ('MCP server target') and enumerates the detection layers: source analysis, package manifests, dynamic execution. It doesn't explicitly name or distinguish itself from the siblings (check_listing, list_detectors), but the 'full detection core' scope makes the distinction self-evident.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description pairs 'dynamic=True' with its requirement (Docker sandbox), which hints at when to enable the heavy path. There is no explicit guidance on when to reach for scan_target versus check_listing or list_detectors, nor stated prerequisites beyond the sandbox.

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