Scan the live app for vulnerabilities

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

The annotations already declare `openWorldHint=true` and `destructiveHint=false`. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the scan is fast, runs against the live app, checks specific vulnerability categories, and is asynchronous with a polling requirement.

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 short, front-loaded with the action and scope, and every clause adds useful information. It efficiently moves from scan purpose to duration to the required follow-up call.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what is scanned, how long it takes, that it returns a `scanId`, and which sibling tool to call next.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document semantically. The description correctly notes that a `scanId` is returned, which is workflow information rather than an input parameter.

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 and resource ('Start a scan of the running application') and enumerates the vulnerability classes checked. It clearly distinguishes itself from `security_scan_status` by explaining the polling handoff.

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?

It gives clear usage context and names the follow-up tool (`security_scan_status`) with the `scanId` needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the workflow is unambiguous.

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