scan_licenses_and_vulns

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the async execution model, the returned job_id, and the realistic latency (clone + DB download exceeding 60s). It omits prerequisites such as Trivy availability, repository auth/credentials, and any failure modes, which leaves a gap for a mutation-adjacent heavy operation.

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 and efficient: the async/job_id fact comes first, polling guidance second, parameter semantics last in a short Args block. The Args heading is slightly unusual for a single parameter but does not waste space.

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-value detail is not required. For a one-parameter async job launcher the description covers what to pass, what comes back, and how to retrieve results; only permission/auth prerequisites and error behavior are unaddressed.

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% — the single 'target' property has no description — so the description must compensate. It does, characterizing target as a repository URL or local path matching what `trivy repository` accepts, which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs to construct a valid value.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Start a Trivy license + vulnerability scan' — and names the exact result artifact (job_id). It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling generate_sbom, which is presumably also a Trivy-based scan, so an agent must infer which scanning tool is appropriate by name alone.

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?

Clear operational routing: this is async, so the agent knows to call get_job_status afterward rather than expecting inline results, and the >60s warning tells it not to block. What is missing is any guidance on when to pick this over generate_sbom or audit_repo_health.

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