get_scan_prompt

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that only NOT_IMPLEMENTED controls are included, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or the format of the returned prompt. Moderately transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get', no fluff. Every word serves a purpose. Highly efficient.

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?

The description provides the core purpose and a key filter, but lacks context about the prompt's intended use (e.g., for an LLM or scanning tool) and does not explicitly differentiate from the functional scan prompt sibling. Adequate but incomplete for full context.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The server_version parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. With 67% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter details.

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 retrieves a scan prompt for codebase gap discovery, and specifies it only includes NOT_IMPLEMENTED controls. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_functional_scan_prompt' by focusing on controls rather than functional tests, but does not explicitly state this differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_control_gaps' or 'get_functional_scan_prompt'. Missing instructions on prerequisites, post-processing steps, or 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.