guard_get_scan_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: it enumerates the four possible return states and warns that repeated polling should be spaced out, which is behavioral guidance not present in the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the possible outcomes, then the polling caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is 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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of listing the status values an agent will receive. It is missing only what happens after 'completed' (whether results are immediately fetchable via guard_get_scan_results) and any failure-recovery hint.

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?

Only one parameter (scan_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It implies the ID originates from guard_scan_site, which gives useful provenance, but never states the expected format or that it must be the identifier returned by the scan call.

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+resource ('informa em que pé está uma varredura') and scopes it to scans initiated by guard_scan_site, which cleanly separates it from guard_get_scan_results. It stops short of naming the results sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the status-vs-results split.

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?

Gives clear usage context: call it for a scan started by guard_scan_site and poll with a delay ('Espere alguns segundos entre consultas'). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g. guard_get_scan_results) is offered, so it is context without exclusions.

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