scout_quickview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a valuable behavioral nuance: 'Does not raise on a non-zero CLI exit (a missing scout plugin still raises) — inspect raw.stderr.' This goes beyond the annotation's safety profile and informs error handling, though it doesn't elaborate on return format details beyond the explicit dict.

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 well-structured: a crisp opening sentence, followed by usage context, an important error-handling note, and a clearly labeled 'args' and 'returns' section. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy or verbosity.

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 output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, how to interpret edge cases (stderr), parameter meanings, and the return structure. It leaves no critical gap in understanding, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. Each parameter is explained: image as 'Image reference', format with default and allowed values ('json' or 'text'), and platform with a concrete example ('linux/amd64'). This provides necessary meaning beyond field names, though some could argue for even more detail on format accepted values or platform constraints.

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 'Render a compact summary of an image's CVE posture,' which is a specific verb+resource. It further differentiates from siblings by calling it 'The fastest triage step' and contrasting with scout_cves (drill into findings) and scout_recommendations (upgrade suggestions).

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 explicitly frames the tool as the first triage step and names alternatives for deeper actions: 'Drill into individual findings with scout_cves; get upgrade suggestions with scout_recommendations.' It also provides an implementation note about error handling (non-zero CLI exit) that guides usage.

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