Get a full-site scan run by id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Pro+' as a behavioral constraint (likely a pricing tier), but lacks information on idempotency, rate limits, or whether it is a read or poll operation. The word 'polls' implies possible repeated calls, but this is not clarified.

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 very concise, consisting of one short sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb. However, it omits necessary details, balancing conciseness against completeness.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns or how to use it beyond the basic polling context. It fails to explain the response or that it is a full-site scan run.

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% and the description does not mention the runId parameter or its format (UUID). The title says 'by id' but provides no further meaning. With a single required parameter, the description should at least state what the runId represents.

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 indicates the tool polls a run started by scan_site, specifying the verb 'polls' and the resource 'run'. However, it does not explicitly state that it retrieves a full-site scan run by ID, and 'polls' might imply status checking rather than retrieval. It distinguishes from siblings like get_trends and get_run_findings by referencing scan_site.

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 tells when to use the tool (after starting a scan via scan_site or registered-site scan_url) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The mention of Pro+ indicates a potential access restriction.

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