roboshadow_get_scan_ips_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the operation is a read (get) and describes the output shape (per-IP breakdown with CVE counts, port counts, component statuses). However, it does not disclose pagination, filtering, or whether the scan must be external-only, which is implied by 'external vulnerability scan' but not enforced or explained.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then lists the exact data elements returned. No wasted words.

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?

For a read-only tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what the response contains. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating when to use this versus the scan summary or vulnerabilities summary siblings, but the per-IP breakdown wording makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the context that scanId refers to an external vulnerability scan and that organisationId is a UUID, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('per-target breakdown of one external vulnerability scan'), and the exact contents (CVE counts by severity, open-port counts, component scan statuses per IP). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like roboshadow_get_scan_summary or roboshadow_get_vulnerabilities_summary.

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 implies usage context: it is for a single external vulnerability scan and returns per-IP detail. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like roboshadow_get_scan_summary or roboshadow_get_vulnerabilities_summary, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required parameters.

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