list_scans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the authorization scope ('visible to the authenticated API key') and the optional filter behavior, plus the returned fields. However, it does not mention potential pagination, ordering, rate limits, or whether the list is partial or complete, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes only relevant details: the optional filter and the returned fields. There is no redundant or vague wording.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the input and the output, and the auth scope. No critical information seems missing for an AI to select and invoke it correctly.

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 only parameter, folder_id, is explained in the description as an optional filter. Since the input schema has no property descriptions (0% schema coverage), this description provides essential meaning beyond the schema, clarifying that it controls folder-based filtering. It does not detail null handling, but the schema's default null and the phrase 'optionally' cover the basics.

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 begins with 'List scans visible to the authenticated API key, optionally filtered by folder ID.' This clearly states the verb (list), the resource (scans), the scope (visible to API key), and an optional filter (folder ID). It also names the returned fields. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_scan_details (single scan) and scan_delta (comparison).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve a list of scans that the API key can see, with an optional folder filter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the simple 'list' intent and the sibling names make the use case evident. No misleading guidance is present.

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