pci_list_scans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context about ordering ('newest first') and pagination via offset/limit, but does not disclose other traits like default page size, maximum page size beyond the limit range, or what fields are returned. This is acceptable for a straightforward read-only list tool.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the parameter documentation is presented as a clean list. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 list operation with two optional parameters, the description is reasonably complete. Annotations cover read-only safety, an output schema exists, and the parameter semantics are defined. It could benefit from a brief note on when to use pci_list_scans versus pci_get_scan, but the overall information is sufficient for basic use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by documenting both parameters: 'offset: 1-based record offset' and 'limit: Rows per page, 1-1000.' This provides clear meaning beyond the bare schema, though it omits details about default behavior when parameters are null.

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's function: 'List PCI scans, newest first.' The verb 'list' and resource 'PCI scans' are specific, and the ordering 'newest first' adds useful detail. This distinguishes it from siblings like pci_get_scan (which retrieves a single scan) and pci_list_assets (which lists a different resource).

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 the tool is for enumerating scans but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like pci_get_scan or pci_list_vulns. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. The context of sibling names provides some guidance, but the description itself lacks direct usage recommendations.

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