get_scan_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether status is polled, what states are returned, whether the scan_id must come from start_dependency_scan, or whether the call is cheap/safe to repeat. It only restates the 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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the verb-resource pairing front-loaded. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description still omits the essentials for correct invocation: where scan_id comes from, typical polling behavior, and how this differs from the report tool. For a tool with a sibling pair this thin, more context is warranted.

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% for the single required scan_id parameter, and the description adds only the weak implication that the id identifies a dependency vulnerability scan. It does not explain the id's origin or format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (status for a dependency vulnerability scan), which is meaningfully narrower than the sibling get_scan_report. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from get_scan_report or start_dependency_scan, so an agent must infer the status-vs-report split.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication that this is typically polled after start_dependency_scan. The description offers nothing about when this tool is the right choice versus get_scan_report.

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