start_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Start a new security scan') but doesn't describe what happens during the scan, whether it's asynchronous, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or how results are accessed. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely initiates resource-intensive operations.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'Args:' section formatting could be more integrated with the natural language description.

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 tool that initiates security scans (likely a significant operation with resource implications), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it doesn't adequately prepare an agent for proper usage. It should address scan behavior, result access, and relationship to other scanning-related 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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It explains that 'repository_ids' represents 'List of repository IDs to scan', which provides basic context, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive. No format, source, or validation details are provided.

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 action ('Start a new security scan') and target ('on one or more repositories'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_scans' or 'search_vulnerabilities' which might involve scanning operations, leaving room for improvement.

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 prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_scans' (which might show scan results) or 'search_vulnerabilities' (which might involve scanning data).

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