list_scans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filtering and pagination' but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. For a list tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear opening sentence followed by a bullet-point-like 'Args' section. Each sentence earns its place by explaining functionality or parameters, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format, safety, limits) and usage guidelines. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'search_query' for filtering scans, 'repository_ids' for filtering by IDs, 'scan_type' with enum values (FullScan, PrScan, SCAScan), and 'page'/'page_size' for pagination with defaults. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List security scans with optional filtering and pagination.' This specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('security scans'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_security_posture' or 'start_scan', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_security_posture' for summary data or 'start_scan' for initiating scans, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for use, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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