scan_vulnerabilities

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

The description adds '[Write]' but annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false. No additional behavioral traits disclosed, such as queue behavior, rate limits, or what happens if a scan is already running.

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 sentence plus '[Write]', efficiently conveying the core action. No redundant information, though it could briefly expand on output.

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?

Lacks description of return value (e.g., scan ID or status) despite no output schema. Does not differentiate from other scan triggers among many siblings.

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 the description's mention of 'CIs or groups' adds little beyond the schema's descriptions of 'group' and 'ci_sys_ids'. No extra constraints or formatting details 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 tool's purpose: 'Trigger a vulnerability scan for specified CIs or groups.' The verb 'trigger' and resource 'vulnerability scan' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run_discovery_scan' by focusing on vulnerabilities.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'run_discovery_scan' or 'list_vulnerabilities'). It does not specify prerequisites or context for optimal use.

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