roboshadow_list_scan_status

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 conveys a read-only listing operation implicitly, and notes per-IP and per-domain detail. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default sorting, or any side effects beyond what the schema already covers. It adds some context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and filtering options without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with a required organisationId and pagination parameters fully described in the schema, the description sufficiently conveys the output structure (per-IP and per-domain status). No output schema exists, but the description gives enough hint about the return content. It lacks explicit mention of default sort order, but that is covered by the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting that isScheduled and status are the primary filters, which helps an agent understand which parameters are most relevant for narrowing results, beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (external vulnerability scan status) with clear scope (per-IP, per-domain for an organisation). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_scan_summary by focusing on the full status list rather than a 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?

Mentions filtering by isScheduled or status, giving agents the key usage options. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_scan_summary or get_scan_ips_overview, though the purpose is fairly self-evident.

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