get_scan_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's added value is the blocking semantics of wait_seconds and the fact that results are per-category size summaries. It does not say what happens when the scan is already finished or when the wait times out other than implicitly.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the one decision the caller has to make. There is no filler.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what comes back and how to make it wait. It could be more complete by mentioning the timeout ceiling and the behavior when no scan is active.

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%, yet the description explains what wait_seconds actually does — it blocks until the scan completes or the timeout elapses — which the bare integer schema does not convey. It omits the 0–50 bound and that the default of 0 means non-blocking, so it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage 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 names the resource (the current scan) and what it returns (progress plus a per-category size summary), which is enough to separate it from siblings like start_scan or cancel_scan. The verb is only implied by the name 'get' rather than stated, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 gives real guidance for the blocking case ('set wait_seconds to block until the scan finishes or the time runs out'), which implies the alternative is a non-blocking poll. However, it never states when to call this versus list_categories or get_disk_usage, nor what to do if no scan is running.

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