Get scan summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal value: it does not describe what the summary contains (e.g., severity counts, total vulnerabilities) or if there are any constraints (e.g., requires a completed scan). Without output schema, the agent must rely on the description for behavioral expectations.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and succinct. It conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or sections) that could improve readability for complex tools.

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 low complexity (2 params, strong annotations) and absence of output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what 'summary' returns, leaving the agent to guess the output. Sibling tool 'arcane_vulnerability_get_scan_result' likely returns detailed results, but this distinction is not made.

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 documentation coverage is 100%; both parameters have brief descriptions ('Environment ID', 'Image ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond these. Given high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve it.

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 'Get a vulnerability scan summary for an image' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'arcane_vulnerability_get_scan_result' or 'arcane_vulnerability_get_scan_summaries' (plural), which could lead to confusion about which tool to 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like 'arcane_vulnerability_get_scan_result' and 'arcane_vulnerability_get_scan_summaries' exist but no differentiation is given.

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