trigger_sie_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses background execution, effects of each mode (apply modifies files, seals receipts), permission requirements, and governance by constitutional policy. It does not detail error handling or rate limits, but covers key behaviors sufficiently.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds useful information (modes, background, permissions, receipts). Minor redundancy exists but generally efficient.

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?

No output schema, but the description compensates by mentioning sealed receipts and directing the agent to check get_platform_briefing for results. It covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to invoke, side effects, and post-invocation steps. Given the tool's complexity (modes, background execution), it is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100% so both parameters are documented. The description adds significant value for the 'mode' parameter by detailing the behavior of each enum value. For 'use_llm', it does not add beyond the schema, but overall the parameter intent is clear.

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 action ('kick off') and the resource ('SIE scan of the iTechSmart platform'). It distinguishes between the two modes (dry-run and apply), making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It is well-differentiated from siblings like get_sie_queue.

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 when to use each mode and indicates that the scan runs in the background, recommending checking get_platform_briefing for results after ~2 minutes. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives.

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