scout_quickview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's behavioral disclosure is minimal. The description adds the return dict structure but doesn't mention potential prerequisites (e.g., image must exist) or error cases. For a read operation, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise, using a standard docstring format. It covers parameters and return value in a few lines. However, the docstring formatting (args/returns) is slightly verbose for a tool description; a more compact prose would be even better.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations for safety, the description covers parameter meanings and return structure. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites, but for a simple read tool, 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description provides full parameter explanations: 'image' as reference, 'format' with default 'json' and options, 'platform' with default null. It also explains the return dict structure. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 verb 'Render' and resource 'compact summary of an image's CVE posture' clearly state the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scout_cves' (likely more detailed) and 'scout_sbom' (SBOM focus). However, 'render' is slightly vague; a more active verb like 'Get' or 'List' could be clearer.

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 implies use for a quick overview via 'compact summary', but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like 'scout_cves' or 'scout_sbom'. The naming 'quickview' suggests speed over depth, but the description doesn't articulate this differentiation.

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