run_scanner

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses: allowed tool list, verbatim argument passing, optional target with scope check, missing tool fallback (structured note + native command), JSONL auto-parsing, and an environment variable gate. This is comprehensive.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second elaborates key behaviors. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (external command execution) and minimal schema, the description covers all critical aspects: allowed tools, argument handling, target scope, error behavior, output parsing, and access gating. No output schema exists, but the description adequately hints at return format.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the allowed values for 'tool', the verbatim nature of 'args', and the optional 'target' with scope checking. While it doesn't detail argument syntax, it adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare type/title.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Run an installed external security CLI and return its output.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it runs known external tools, which sets it apart from other recon/scan tools.

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 lists the allowed tools and provides some usage constraints (verbatim args, scope checking, env gating) but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it. It implies a specific use case but lacks direct exclusions.

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