run_iast_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Execute... scan' which implies a potentially resource-intensive or time-consuming operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the scan type and scope. No unnecessary details or 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?

Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how long it runs, error conditions, or security implications. For a complex scanning tool with multiple configuration options, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the scan targets a runtime environment. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or interactions.

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 ('Execute') and the resource ('IAST scan'), specifying it involves 'Runtime Configuration & Header Analysis'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_dast_scan or run_sast_scan by focusing on IAST methodology. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., run_sca_scan).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when IAST is appropriate compared to DAST/SAST/SCA, or any exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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