list_scans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses server pacing (random 2-5s delays, one tool at a time, never call in parallel), pagination semantics (next_cursor null = last page), and error handling (follow error.hint; auth_expired/site_changed/unknown_state/internal_error/profile_in_use never retried blindly; else retry at most twice). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then parameters, then pacing and error rules; almost every clause earns its place. It is dense and slightly long, but there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Output schema exists (so return shape is documented), and the description still covers pagination, pacing constraints, and the full error/retry policy. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema gives no descriptions, so the description must compensate — and it does: limit range 1-50 with default 20, cursor should carry next_cursor from the previous response, and null cursor means the final page. It also explains the meaning of resume_sha256/jd_sha256 nullability.

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 (List), resource (past scans), ordering (newest first), and the two concrete purposes (reuse checks and deletion candidates). An agent can immediately tell this apart from start_scan, get_scan_status, delete_scan, etc. without opening any schema.

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?

'for reuse checks and deletion candidates' implies when to use it, but no sibling is named as an alternative and no exclusion is given (e.g. when to prefer get_scan_status over listing). Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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