Scan status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that: findings counts are only present once the scan is complete, implying callers must handle a pending state. It says nothing about what status values exist or whether findings are truncated in the count.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the conditional behavior ('once complete') is stated inline rather than buried. It is arguably slightly too terse given the gaps elsewhere, but there is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and annotations cover the read-only nature. For a single-ID lookup tool, the only real gap is how to obtain a scan_id and how to handle a not-yet-complete scan.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required scan_id, so the schema contributes only the name. 'of one scan' implies the ID selects a single scan, which is adequate for an obvious identifier, but no format, source (e.g. from list_scans), or error behavior for an unknown ID is described.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (status of one scan) and adds the payoff (findings count by severity once complete). The 'one scan' framing implicitly separates it from list_scans and get_findings, though neither sibling is named.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus list_scans (to find a scan_id), wait_for_scan (to poll until completion), or get_findings (for detailed findings). The agent must infer the polling/alternative relationship entirely from sibling names.

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