List active scans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields, mentions the `predefined: true` flag for system scans, and explicitly states that no scan-execution tool exists, which prevents agents from attempting a write action. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but these are less critical for a read-only list operation.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core return-value specification, followed by usage guidance and a crucial caveat about scan execution. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 thoroughly covers the output shape by listing fields, provides a clear use case, and adds a behavioral nuance about predefined scans. The only gap is the undocumented `limit` parameter, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the overall context is strong.

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 schema has one parameter (`limit`) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain it. The agent is left to infer its purpose from the name and default value alone. Given the low coverage, the description should have compensated by stating that `limit` controls how many scans are returned, but it does not.

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 Tenable OT active-scan job specifications' and enumerates the specific fields returned (name, operation type, category, trigger, etc.). The verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_active_scan, which fetches a single scan.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to audit what scans are configured.' It also provides a when-not by noting that 'this server does not expose any tool that runs a scan,' preventing misuse. However, it does not name alternative tools for related operations, such as getting a single scan's details.

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