Security summary of this PC

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result categories, including the negative case ('what could not be checked'), which helps the agent interpret an incomplete scan.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action, then lists outputs in priority order, ending with the sequencing directive. No filler and nothing an agent must read twice.

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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the verdict scale and the result buckets. For a zero-param read-only scan, nothing needed to invoke or interpret it is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and the empty schema with additionalProperties:false is consistent.

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?

Specific verb ('scan') and resource ('this PC'), plus an enumeration of what comes back: verdict (ok/review/alert), reportable findings, running AI agents with MCP servers, and unchecked items. This distinguishes it from list_findings and list_agents, which are narrower slices of the same data.

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?

'Call this first' gives an explicit entry-point ordering instruction, which is exactly the context an agent needs to sequence its calls. It does not, however, name when to prefer a sibling (e.g. list_findings) for follow-up, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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