pointer_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the scan is asynchronous and requires inspection in CE's UI, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention error handling, invalid address behavior, or expected completion time.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage context. Every word is necessary and no redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of 'max_level' and 'max_offset', the return value (if any), or how the asynchronous nature affects the workflow. More guidance is needed for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It only explains the 'address' parameter, leaving 'max_level' and 'max_offset' unexplained. These are important for the scan depth and range, and their absence reduces the tool's usability.

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 clearly states the tool starts a pointer scan to find stable pointer paths to a given address, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pointer_resolve (which resolves a single pointer) and scan functions (which search for values). The verb 'start' and resource 'pointer scan' are specific.

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 explains that the scan runs asynchronously and results must be inspected in CE's UI, providing clear context on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like pointer_resolve or set when-not-to-use conditions.

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