Get past executions of an active scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only audits executions and does not trigger them ('execution is triggered by humans, not this server'), and lists statuses and source types. This adds valuable context beyond a simple read operation, though it does not cover permission or error behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return fields. The second sentence adds a useful usage caveat without fluff. Every clause contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, and a key behavioral trait, and an output schema exists to explain return values. It lacks only minor details like limit default behavior or error handling, which are not critical for a simple read tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies scan_id via 'one active scan' and completely omits the 'limit' parameter. This leaves a significant gap in understanding the parameters beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 it 'Returns past execution records for one active scan' and enumerates exact fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_active_scan (scan details) and list_active_scans (list scans). The verb 'Returns' and resource 'past execution records' are specific.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to audit when a scan was last run and whether it succeeded,' giving a clear context. It also adds a caveat that execution is human-triggered, not by this server. However, it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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