vyntryx_scan_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not say whether the call is cheap to poll, what states exist, whether a session can expire or be cancelled out from under it, or how progress is reported.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why other dimensions are weak.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the definition still omits the session_id origin, polling expectations, and the scan lifecycle context that would let an agent use this correctly within the vyntryx scan workflow.

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% for the single required parameter session_id, and the description never mentions it or explains where the identifier comes from (presumably an upload/git scan call). With one undocumented required parameter, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 phrase 'State and progress of a scan session' identifies the resource (a scan session) and the kind of information returned (status/progress), which does separate it from siblings like vyntryx_cancel_scan or vyntryx_list_findings. However it is a bare noun fragment with no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a retrieval operation rather than a state change.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus vyntryx_session_messages, vyntryx_cancel_scan, or the login/source tools, and no indication of whether it should be polled or called once. Usage is only implied by the word 'status'.

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