guard_get_scan_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are ordered most-severe to least-severe, an overall score is included, and passed checks are hidden by default — genuinely useful traits not derivable from the annotations.

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, zero filler, with the core behavior (findings + ordering + score) front-loaded and the optional-parameter caveat second. Nothing is repeated from the name or annotations.

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, so the description must describe the return value — and it does: a severity-ordered findings list plus an overall score, filtered by default. The remaining gap is the limit parameter's effect on the returned set, which is not addressed anywhere.

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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains include_passed clearly (show passing checks too), but says nothing about scan_id (which scan / where it comes from) or limit (whether it truncates the findings list or paginates), leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 — it returns the findings of a completed scan — and adds scope details (severity-descending ordering, overall score). It implicitly separates itself from guard_get_scan_status by requiring a 'varredura concluída', but never names the sibling or states the precondition explicitly.

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?

It gives usable guidance for one parameter ('passe include_passed para ver também o que está correto'), which tells the agent the default view is filtered to problems only. However, it never says when to call this versus guard_get_scan_status, nor what happens if the scan is not yet finished.

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