telivy_list_external_scans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'List' plus 'lightweight, agentless' communicates a non-mutating, low-impact read operation. It does not disclose response shape, pagination behavior, or admin/auth restrictions, though the schema partially covers limit/offset and agencyId.

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 entire description is one front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. It conveys the essential purpose and nature of the tool in about ten 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 simple list operation with a fully documented schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks usage guidance and any indication of the response format since no output schema exists. Sibling tool names provide some context, though not enough to fully replace explicit guidance.

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?

All six parameters already have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), including enums for sortOrder and assessmentSortBy. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('external (surface) scans'), and clarifies the item type as 'lightweight, agentless domain/email security assessments.' It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the resource term is unambiguous enough.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus telivy_list_external_scan_findings, telivy_list_risk_assessments, or telivy_get_external_scan. The description only defines what the tool does, leaving selection to the agent to infer from names. This is a clear gap.

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