scan_target

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the scan is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. It omits potential side effects (e.g., network load, detection) and does not explain what happens after the scan (e.g., are results stored?). The presence of a sibling 'get_job_status' hints at asynchronous behavior, but the description is silent on this.

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 that immediately conveys the action and resource. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, it fails to address the asynchronous nature (inferred from sibling 'get_job_status'), the difference between scan types, or how results are retrieved. The missing context leaves the agent uncertain how to handle the tool's lifecycle.

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 100%, with both parameters already documented in the input schema (target as 'IP or hostname', scan_type as 'quick, full, or stealth'). The description adds only the generic word 'comprehensive', which does not enhance understanding of parameter meaning or constraints. It provides no additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool runs a 'comprehensive security scan' on a target, which is a specific action with a defined resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'run_security_tool', which may have overlapping functionality. A higher score would require explicit distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_security_tool' or 'diagnose_issue'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description only says what it does, not when or why to choose it.

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