scan_status

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

The description indicates this is a read-only status check, which is consistent with typical behavior. However, since annotations are missing, the description carries the full burden; it could benefit from stating whether the tool is non-destructive, or if it has any side effects, but it is not misleading.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and is immediate in delivering the core functionality.

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 is simple (one required parameter) and the schema covers the parameter well, the description is mostly adequate. It could mention that the status is returned or what format the results are in, but the low complexity reduces the need for more detail.

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 100% for the single parameter 'job_id', which is clearly described as 'The scan job ID returned by scan_image'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 the verb ('check') and resource ('status and results of a vulnerability scan'), which aligns with the tool's name. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_image' (which initiates a scan) and 'get_findings' (which retrieves detailed findings), though it does not explicitly call out the distinction.

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 this tool should be used after initiating a scan with 'scan_image' (as it requires job_id from that tool). However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.

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