Wait for a scan

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — that the call blocks until completion or timeout, that the timeout window is 1–60 minutes, and that it reports progress while waiting. It stops short of saying whether a timed-out call errors or returns partial status, which matters for a long-blocking call.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the wait condition, then the timeout caveat, then the return value. No filler and nothing to trim.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail the response shape, and it still summarizes status and findings count. The only remaining gap is the timeout outcome (error vs. partial result), which is the one thing an agent calling a blocking tool would want to know.

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 carries the burden. It does add the useful 1–60 minute range for timeout_minutes (the schema only supplies a default of 20), which is genuine added meaning, but scan_id semantics and the effect of the default are left unaddressed.

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 names a specific verb+resource (wait for a scan) and states the completion condition plus the return payload (status and findings count). It is distinct from get_scan, though it never explicitly contrasts with it, so an agent must infer that get_scan is the non-blocking alternative.

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 word "Wait" implies this is the blocking follow-up to a scan launch, and the timeout clause implies a fallback when a scan is slow. However, no sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not condition (e.g., use get_scan for an immediate snapshot) is given.

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