scout_quickview

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

Even though annotations include readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds significant behavioral context: output is plain text only with no output-format option, the result is always rendered text, and it discloses that non-zero CLI exits do not raise exceptions (except missing plugin) and suggests inspecting raw.stderr. This goes beyond annotations to describe error handling and output format nuances.

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, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. It uses short paragraphs and bullet-like structure for args and returns, making it scannable. Every sentence adds value—no fluff.

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 the simple interface (2 params, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, output format, error behavior, and return structure. The agent can confidently invoke and interpret results without additional information. The return dict is explicitly described, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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 compensate. It describes 'image' as 'Image reference' and 'platform' as 'Platform of the image to analyze, e.g. "linux/amd64"', which adds meaningful examples and clarity beyond the bare schema names. The description does not fully elaborate on image reference formats, but the provided context is adequate.

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 renders a compact summary of an image's CVE posture, with specific details on counts per severity and base-image status. It effectively distinguishes from siblings by naming scout_cves and scout_recommendations and describing what they do differently.

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?

It explicitly positions the tool as the fastest triage step and provides clear guidance on when to use alternatives: scout_cves for machine-readable JSON and drill-down, scout_recommendations for upgrade suggestions. This is an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use pattern with named alternatives.

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