Start a scan

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

Annotations cover mutation/safety (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds non-obvious context: quota consumption, the confirmation requirement, plan-dependent mode availability, and that it returns a scan id. It doesn't warn about duplicate scans if retried or file size limits, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then return/follow-up — good ordering with no filler. Slightly dense in places (the plan sentence could be tightened), but every sentence conveys actionable information.

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 values are covered, and the description still notes it returns a scan id and the natural next call. Remaining gap is the undocumented project_name parameter and any file-size/upload limitations for a non-idempotent, quota-consuming operation.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It explains file_path by giving accepted extensions and explains scan_mode values plus the 'full' plan requirement, but says nothing about project_name (null default, whether it's required for grouping) and no size/format constraints.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Upload a local Android ... or iOS ... app to GoMobSec and start a security scan.' It also enumerates accepted file extensions, which no sibling does, so the agent can distinguish start_scan from list_scans/get_scan/wait_for_scan at a glance.

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?

Explicitly says to confirm with the user first because a scan is consumed from the plan, and states the follow-up ('wait_for_scan'). Plan-tier gating on scan_mode is also usage guidance. No explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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