get_site_audit_scanned_urls_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so effectively. It discloses critical behavioral traits: error conditions ('Returns error...'), operational constraints ('Does not consume API credits'), and clarifies the nature of returned data ('INPUT configuration, not OUTPUT'). It doesn't cover all possible edge cases like rate limits, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste: every sentence adds critical information. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by constraints, error conditions, differentiation from alternatives, and operational details. No redundant or vague phrasing exists.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage constraints, error handling, data nature, and operational impact. For a read-only tool with good parameter documentation, no additional information is needed for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'projectId' adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to given the high coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Get CONFIGURED URL list for scanning') and resource ('URL list'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_site_audits_list' (actual scan results) and 'get_site_audit_settings' (settings). It explicitly clarifies this shows 'INPUT configuration, not OUTPUT of what was scanned,' preventing confusion with result-oriented tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: it specifies when to use ('ONLY works when scanSetting.type is 2 or 3'), when not to use (returns error 'Scan url list not found' when type=1), and names an alternative ('Check get_site_audits_list response for actual scanned page count'). This covers all key decision points for tool selection.

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