scan_bulk_by_criteria

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the AND combination of criteria and the absence of a tag filter, which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'queue' implies (asynchronous job, return value, side effects), nor any permissions or preconditions. These gaps are significant for a mutation-like tool, but the description is not contradictory or completely silent.

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 with no redundant phrasing. The main action is front-loaded, and the limitation and alternative are placed at the end. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover parameter semantics, the return format (e.g., job ID or confirmation), or the asynchronous nature of queuing. While the tag-filter workaround is covered, an agent would have to guess critical usage details, so the description falls short of being a complete guide.

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 does not elaborate on any of the four parameters (only_roots, scan_types, online_only, scanned_before). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, but it only refers to 'given criteria' without explaining field meanings, types, or defaults. The agent is left to infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for parameters like scanned_before.

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 action: 'Queue a scan for every target matching the given criteria' and explicitly distinguishes itself from scan_bulk_selected by noting the criteria-based vs. selected-target approach. It names the verb and resource precisely, making it unambiguous which tool fits.

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?

It provides explicit when-not guidance: the lack of a tag filter is called out, and the alternative workflow (list tags, resolve IDs, use scan_bulk_selected) is concretely described. This gives the agent a clear decision path between this tool and its sibling.

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