get_scan_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns live status if a scan is running, otherwise the last known state, and provides example states like 'idle' and 'queued'. This gives a clear behavioral picture without contradicting any annotations (none exist).

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key behavioral detail (live vs last known). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it returns and the distinction between live and last-known status. It mentions possible states, but does not address error handling or return structure. Still, it is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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 schema has no description for target_id and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'for a target', which maps target_id to the target entity but does not explain the integer format or any constraints. This provides minimal but essential meaning, falling short of full compensation for the schema gap.

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 it retrieves scan status for a specific target, using a specific verb (get) and resource (scan status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like queue_status by specifying 'for a target', making it unambiguous which tool to use for per-target status.

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 implies usage when you have a target_id, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no contrast with queue_status or other sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without direct guidance.

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