estate_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the scan touches every installed package via OSV (potentially slow, network-dependent) and the result is persisted as a snapshot, i.e. a state-mutating write. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, cost, failure behavior, or whether snapshots can be deleted or overwritten.

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 the outcome statement, then the mechanism, then the downstream purpose, then the argument note. Tight and waste-free, though the docstring-style "Args:" block for a single documented parameter is slightly redundant.

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 explained. The pipeline mechanics and the persistence-to-comparison relationship are covered well; the main residual gap is the undocumented `ctx` parameter and the absence of any note on cost or runtime for a full-estate scan.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for `label` — purpose plus concrete examples ("monday", "pre-release") that the bare `title: Label` field lacks — but `ctx` is never mentioned in the description or the schema, leaving one of two parameters entirely undocumented.

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 and resource: it takes a snapshot of the estate's vulnerability exposure by querying OSV for every installed package and joining KEV and EPSS data. It also distinguishes itself from the many single-CVE lookup siblings by naming the downstream consumers (watch_diff / watch_brief), so an agent can tell this is the estate-level baseline producer rather than a per-package scanner.

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 establishes clear context: this is the snapshot-producing step whose output watch_diff and watch_brief consume, which implicitly tells an agent to run it before those tools. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or a direct comparison to scan_dependencies / scan_container_packages, so the routing between scanning siblings is left partly to inference.

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