bitdefender_list_scan_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the responsibility of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only and will never create tasks, and it describes the paginated response envelope (page/pagesCount/perPage/total/items). This goes beyond basic expectations and gives the agent a clear understanding of what will happen and what the response looks like.

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 efficient and well-structured. It leads with the primary purpose, immediately follows with a read-only guarantee, and ends with the return envelope. Every sentence adds valuable information, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the pagination envelope. It also covers the read-only nature and status codes, which are key for correct usage. While it doesn't mention error handling or authentication, those are often covered in the README, which is referenced. For a list operation with 4 parameters, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for all four parameters, including descriptions for the name filter wildcard behavior, pagination, and status enums. The tool description does not add any new information about the parameters beyond what the schema documents, so the baseline score of 3 applies as the description adds no extra semantic value.

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's function: 'List previously created on-demand scan tasks and their status'. It specifies the resource (scan tasks) and the verb (list), and distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on scan tasks specifically. The status codes are also mentioned, adding specificity.

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 notes it is read-only and explicitly says it never creates a scan task (createScanTask is excluded), which informs when not to use it for creation. It references the README for scope details, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations. This is clear enough for most scenarios, though a direct alternative mention would elevate it.

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