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 two behavioral traits: the call is synchronous ('immediately return') and the output is filtered to critical/high findings only — an agent might otherwise assume it gets all severities. It omits scan duration/timeout expectations, target authorization requirements, and rate limits, which matter for a live URL scanner.

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, and the primary behavior (full scan, immediate filtered results) is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract (what it scans, what it returns, that it is synchronous) but is thin on operational reality: no expected runtime, no note on failures for unreachable targets, and no mention of the scenario enum's effect on results.

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 both parameters (url, scenario) are documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the scenario enum values (quick, kvkkFocus, gdprFocus, ccpaFocus) or what selecting a compliance scenario changes in the scan.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Run a full GuardBee scan') and states the return content ('all critical and high findings with remediation guidance'). It implies a synchronous behavior that separates it from the async sibling pair (start_scan/get_scan_status/get_findings), but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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' hints at a use case but gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives. An agent is left to infer that the async start_scan + get_scan_status + get_findings path exists for longer or pollable scans.

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