list_scans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format (table with scan ID, drive, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, performance considerations, or whether it's safe. The name implies reading, but additional transparency about side effects or resource usage would strengthen this dimension.

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 relatively concise with three main sentences plus an Args/Returns section. The first sentence effectively front-loads the purpose. Minor repetition exists between 'Returns a table...' and 'Returns: Formatted list...' but overall it's clean and to the point.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the return values and how to use the output (to find scan IDs). Sibling tools provide context. However, since no output schema is provided, the description bears the burden of describing the output, which it does adequately.

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 input schema has zero parameters, achieving 100% coverage by default. The description adds value by explaining the implicit 'ctx' parameter that is injected automatically. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this with clear context about the only 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 clearly states 'List all previous disk scans stored in the database,' which is a specific verb and resource. The tool name 'list_scans' aligns perfectly. Sibling tools like 'scan_disk' (creates), 'cleanup_scans' (deletes), and 'compare_scans' (compares) have different purposes, so this tool is implicitly distinguished.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to find scan IDs for other tools like disk_summary or top_entries,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but in this context (a simple list), explicit exclusions are less critical.

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