vulnerability_scanner__scan_and_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the scan runs synchronously ('immediately return') and filters output to critical and high findings with remediation guidance. However, it omits important behavioral traits for a network-facing scanner: whether scanning is intrusive, expected duration, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether results are persisted.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with zero wasted words. The core action and the immediate-return behavior are front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only partially explains the return value: critical/high findings plus remediation guidance. It does not describe the response format, whether lower-severity findings are omitted or accessible elsewhere, or how this relates to get_findings. This leaves meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 the schema already documents both url and scenario, including the scenario enum. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run a full GuardBee scan' and 'return all critical and high findings with remediation guidance.' This clearly states the operation, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as vulnerability_scanner__start_scan or get_findings.

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?

'Best for quick security assessments' implies the appropriate context, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus start_scan, get_scan_status, or get_findings. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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