esetprotect_list_recent_scans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List details...', which implies a read operation but does not explain what 'recent' means, whether pagination is involved, or any limits/ordering behavior.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is concise, though the terseness contributes to the lack of contextual 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?

The tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to say more to be complete. It does not mention filtering by device/group, pagination, or what details are returned in a scan listing.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the four parameters. pageSize/pageToken and deviceUuid/deviceGroupUuid are only inferable from their names; the description adds no parameter semantics.

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 ('List') and resource ('recent vulnerability scans'), so an agent can tell what is being returned. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with related vulnerability/list tools such as esetprotect_list_device_vulnerabilities or esetprotect_list_vulnerable_devices.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many vulnerability and detection siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The agent must infer that this is the tool for scan-history listings rather than current vulnerability state.

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