Get a scan run's root causes

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by mentioning deterministic behavior and the limitation regarding automated-test coverage and component boundaries. It also notes the Pro+ tier, which is not in annotations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second adds a behavioral caveat, and the third notes the tier. Each sentence serves a clear function.

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?

The tool has one required parameter, an output schema (not shown but present), and clear annotations. The description explains what is returned and gives a key limitation. For a simple read-only tool, this is nearly complete; a missing element would be describing the output structure, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 100%, so the parameter 'runId' is already documented as 'The id returned by scan_site.' The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline of 3.

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 returns 'deterministic repeated DOM patterns and factual blast-radius counts' for a 'full-site run', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_findings or get_run_findings. It also specifies the Pro+ tier, which sets context.

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 description provides implicit guidance by noting the tool is for full-site runs and warns that grouping 'does not expand automated-test coverage and may not match the site's real component boundaries'. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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