pci_download_scan_report

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

Even with annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds significant behavioral detail: bytes are written to disk, only a path is returned, a 404 is normal and not a failure, and it explicitly warns not to treat a 404 as a compliance finding. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives parameter details, then essential caveats. Every sentence contributes value, and the bold formatting for the 404 warning makes it stand out. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description covers prerequisites (generation in console), output behavior (path to saved PDF), error semantics (404), and operational guidance (do not report as compliance finding). It is highly complete given its scope.

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 has one parameter (scan_id) with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that scan_id comes from pci_list_scans, providing provenance that is absent from the schema. This adds meaning beyond the structured field.

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 a specific verb ('Download') and resource ('a scan's report PDF') and the outcome ('return the path'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools that list or get scans/assets/vulns.

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?

Provides clear context: PDF is the only format, reports must be generated in the console first, and a 404 is a normal condition indicating no report has been generated. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context strongly implies when to use and what to expect.

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