vulnerability_scanner__start_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a scan ID (a useful asynchronous workflow detail), but it says nothing about authorization requirements, whether the scan actively probes the target, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool that initiates external scanning, that is a notable 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return value/next step. There is no filler.

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?

The description explains the immediate return (scan ID) and how to follow up, and the rich input schema covers parameters. But with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about side effects, authorization, and how this differs from scan_and_report to be fully complete for an agent.

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%, with every parameter documented including the wait warning, brandId alternative to url, and scenario enum values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema already does that job.

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 and resource ('Start a GuardBee security scan on a URL') and distinguishes the output (scan ID). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling scan_and_report, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when this tool is preferable to that one.

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?

Implies an asynchronous workflow by noting the scan ID can be used to check status and get findings, which hints at usage context. But it never names or contrasts with siblings like get_scan_status, list_scans, or scan_and_report, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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