compare_scans

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

The description implies a read-only operation (comparing existing data), which aligns with the absence of destructive annotations. However, it does not disclose any limits on scan size, performance considerations, or whether the results include all findings or a summary.

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 covers the core purpose and the key outcome categories. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, but could be slightly more structured.

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 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a basic understanding but lacks details on return format, error handling, or limitations. It is minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Both parameters are described in the input schema with clear descriptions ('First scan job ID (baseline)' and 'Second scan job ID (current)'), and coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool compares vulnerability findings between two scans and explains the three possible outcomes (added, removed, unchanged). It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('vulnerability findings'), though it could better differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_findings'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_findings' or 'list_scans'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., both scans must exist) or situations when another tool would be more appropriate.

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