plasticity_section_strength_scan_report

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add beyond that, and it does: the scan record is immutable, it bundles candidate geometry, evidence, calculations and ranking, and it performs a live re-check of session/document/revision/body that returns a current/stale/unverified verdict. That staleness semantics is genuinely valuable context not derivable from the 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the read scope is front-loaded before the validation behavior. Dense with information while staying short.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description does useful work by enumerating the returned payload and the staleness verdict, and a single required parameter keeps input complexity low. The remaining gap is the undocumented source/format of scanReportId, which is the one thing an agent must resolve before it can call the tool.

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% and the single parameter scanReportId carries only a regex pattern with no prose. The description never explains what a scan report ID is, its expected format, or where the agent obtains one (presumably from plasticity_scan_section_strength or a listing tool). With low coverage 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?

It names a specific verb (Read) and a specific resource (one immutable section-strength scan) plus the payload it contains (candidate geometry, evidence, calculations, ranking). This clearly separates it from the producer sibling plasticity_scan_section_strength, which creates scans rather than retrieving them, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool reads a previously created scan by ID and re-validates it against the live binding, so an agent can infer it is called after a scan exists. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over plasticity_list_section_analyses, plasticity_strength_report or re-running the scan, and no preconditions are spelled out.

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