list_scanners

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It accurately describes a read-only operation with no side effects, detailing what information is returned (installed status, supported languages, installation instructions).

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 concise at two sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence. Minor improvement could be trimming 'Returns information about each scanner including' but overall efficient.

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 simple operation (no parameters, expected output schema present), the description adequately covers what the tool returns. The mention of installed status, languages, and installation instructions is sufficient.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline score for 0 params is 4. Given the clarity of the output, a 5 is warranted.

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 lists all available SAST scanners, their status, and supported languages. This distinctively separates it from sibling tools that perform scans or manage vulnerabilities.

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?

While no explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives is provided, the context implies use for discovering available scanners before selecting one. Since there are no similar listing siblings, the purpose is clear enough.

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