scan_buckets_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: 'degrades to info when unprovisioned' and specifies return contents (status and progress metadata), which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase contributes meaning. It avoids redundancy, making it highly concise and structured effectively.

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 simple polling tool with one parameter, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It mentions the return values (status and progress metadata) and the degradation behavior, which covers all necessary information for an agent to use it correctly. No missing critical details.

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?

There is only one parameter, scanId, and the schema provides no description (coverage 0%). The description uses 'by scanId' but does not elaborate on its format or origin beyond the name. Since it is a single obvious identifier, the description provides minimal added meaning, but given the low schema coverage, it partially compensates by implying the identifier is from a scan start operation.

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 polls the status of a cloud-bucket discovery scan by scanId, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like scan_buckets_start (starts a scan) and scan_buckets_findings (retrieves results), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 usage: after starting a scan, poll its status via scanId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the phrasing 'Poll the status' and the context of sibling tools make the intended use clear. The 'Operator-deploy only; degrades to info when unprovisioned' adds conditional context, though not explicit comparisons to other tools.

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