vulnerability_scanner__start_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the async return contract (scan ID) but omits whether credentials/brand context are required, whether scans are rate-limited, and how long they take (the minutes-long warning lives only in the wait param schema).

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 short sentences, zero redundancy, with the action front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause 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 annotations and no output schema, the description does well to name the return value (scan ID), which partially substitutes for a missing output schema. But it leaves gaps around auth requirements and the async/latency behavior that an agent needs before invoking a URL-scanning 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (url, wait, brandId, scenario) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and the minutes-long warning for wait. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Start a GuardBee security scan on a URL') and states the return artifact (a scan ID). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_scan_status and get_findings, though it does not explicitly contrast with vulnerability_scanner__scan_and_report.

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?

The description implies an async workflow by mentioning that the returned scan ID is used to check status and get findings, which hints at the intended sequencing with get_scan_status/get_findings. However, it never states when to choose this tool over scan_and_report, nor any prerequisites.

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