vulnerability_scanner__get_scan_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers little: it hints the return contains 'status and summary' but says nothing about read-only semantics, polling behavior, possible status values, or what happens for an unknown/completed scan ID. For a status-query tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with the scope ('current status and summary') stated immediately and no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is the only carrier of return-shape and safety information, and it only gestures at 'status and summary' without describing what those fields contain or their possible values. Adequate for identification, incomplete for a polling/status tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'scanId' as the ID returned by start_scan. The description's 'by ID' is redundant with that, adding no format, validation, or origin detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the current status and summary of a GuardBee scan by ID'), so an agent knows it retrieves scan state rather than findings or scan lists. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is distinct from (e.g., get_findings, list_scans), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 only implied: the schema note 'Scan ID returned by start_scan' suggests this follows a start_scan call, but the description itself gives no when-to-use guidance. Nothing states when to prefer this over list_scans or get_findings, nor whether it is meant for polling.

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