scan_trigger_by_target_id

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the expansion behavior of 'full_scan' but does not mention side effects, asynchronous execution, rate limits, or any prerequisites. The description is silent on whether the scan is queued or synchronous, and what happens to the target after the scan, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise, using two sentences with an example. It front-loads the main action and includes a concrete example for 'scan_types'. No extraneous wording is present, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should cover the return value, prerequisites, and execution behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., scan ID or status), whether the scan is asynchronous, or any error conditions. While it explains the 'full_scan' expansion, it omits critical context about the overall process, making it incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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 needs to explain all parameters. It clarifies 'target_id' as a numeric id and 'scan_types' with acceptable values, but completely ignores 'scan_priority'. This omission leaves the agent unsure about how to use the optional priority parameter, and the description does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 (trigger a scan) and the resource (an already-known target by numeric id). It also differentiates this tool by specifying 'already-known target', which distinguishes it from other scan tools like 'scan_trigger'. The inclusion of an example module list further clarifies the intended use.

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 that this tool is for known targets, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'scan_trigger'. It provides useful guidance on 'scan_types' values, including the expansion behavior of 'full_scan', which helps the agent decide what to pass. However, it lacks explicit exclusion criteria or references to sibling tools.

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