agent_scan_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (retrieves prior scans), includes full output, and is free to call. This is sufficient for a simple retrieval operation, though it lacks details on error scenarios or rate limits.

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 that efficiently conveys purpose, input (scan_id), output (full stored output), benefit (build on earlier results, free). Front-loaded with key action and resource, no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently hints at the return format (full output). Parameter descriptions are clear. The tool is simple, and the description covers the essential context for correct use, though omitting details on how scan_id is obtained (hinted at from agent_history).

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%, with both parameters having descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., scan_id format, default for include_full_output). Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high and description adds no new semantics.

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 retrieves a prior scan by scan_id, including full output, and emphasizes the benefit of reusing results without cost. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform new scans (e.g., sast_scan, vuln_scan_web_app) or list scans (agent_history).

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 implies usage when you want to build on earlier results, but it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like agent_history for retrieving scan IDs. No direct mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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