scan_bulk_selected

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Queue a scan' implying asynchronous behavior, but does not disclose what is returned, whether the operation is validated, whether it is idempotent, or what side effects occur. For a tool that triggers scans, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy, which is admirably concise. However, it is so terse that it omits essential information, so the conciseness works against completeness rather than as an efficient summary.

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 queueing action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the return behavior (e.g., a job ID or status), the semantics of scan_types, relationship to scan_bulk_preview_count or scan_bulk_by_criteria, or any rate/queue constraints. An agent would need to guess critical details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names only target_ids ('explicit list of target ids') and entirely omits scan_types, leaving its meaning, allowed values, and required format undefined. The agent cannot reliably construct correct arguments from this description.

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 states a specific verb ('Queue a scan') and a specific input ('an explicit list of target ids'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like scan_bulk_by_criteria or scan_bulk_preview_count. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the phrase 'explicit list' signals the distinguishing factor.

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 gives only a vague usage context ('explicit list of target ids') and does not specify when to prefer this over scan_bulk_by_criteria or scan_trigger, nor when not to use it. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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