telivy_get_risk_assessment_scan_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the scope is clear, but the description does not explain what 'completion status' means, whether results are aggregated or per-device, or what kind of response to expect. There is no mutating or destructive implication, so this is minimally transparent.

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 a single direct sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter getter.

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 simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate, but it never defines what 'completion status' looks like (e.g., aggregate counts, per-device booleans, or a status enum). Combined with the lack of usage routing, an agent may still be unsure what the call returns or when to prefer this over sibling tools.

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 input schema already fully documents the only parameter, id, as 'Assessment UUID', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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') and resource ('scan completion status across all devices in a risk assessment'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like telivy_get_risk_assessment_device by emphasizing the all-devices aggregate scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as telivy_list_risk_assessment_devices or telivy_get_risk_assessment_device. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose among the closely related risk-assessment siblings.

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