get_functional_scan_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns (test briefs, objectives, missing entries) and implies read-only behavior. It could explicitly state no side effects, but it is sufficiently informative.

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 fairly concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes necessary detail about the return content and action instructions without excessive verbosity. Minor improvement could be trimming some procedural details.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does a good job explaining the return structure. However, it omits any explanation of the required parameters, which is a significant gap. It also does not mention the output format or any prerequisites.

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 input schema has two parameters (model_id, server_version) with zero descriptions. The description does not clarify their meaning or format, leaving the agent guessing what values to provide. Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate, but it fails to do so.

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's purpose: 'Get the agent brief for functional conformance.' It explains that it returns, for each unverified test, its implementation brief and objectives, plus additional reports. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_scan_prompt and get_functional_coverage.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool by stating 'Generation specifies the functional tests, so this returns...' and provides a clear action instruction to implement and submit via submit_functional_tests. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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