scan_analyze_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'find ... blind spots' and does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what happens with the inputs.

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 an eight-word single sentence with no fluff. However, the phrase 'explicit time' is cryptic enough that clarity is slightly reduced.

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 tool with three required structured parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations, and two sibling tools, a single high-level sentence is insufficient for an agent to construct valid inputs or interpret the result.

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 0%, and the description does not meaningfully explain the three required parameters. 'Explicit time' vaguely hints at 'now' and 'risk-weighted' hints at the role of 'policy', but targets, policy, and now are otherwise left undefined.

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 states a concrete goal: find risk-weighted scan blind spots using explicit time. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like scan_plan and scan_compare in intent, though the meaning of 'explicit time' is somewhat ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus scan_plan or scan_compare, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the single action phrase.

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