scanner_get_scan_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It honestly discloses that the tool returns the scan status and findings count, and implies no side effects (read-only). Additional context about permissions or rate limits would improve transparency but is not critical.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. The primary action ('Get the status') is front-loaded, and the relevant information (status values, findings count) is included efficiently.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return value (status and findings count) and the possible statuses, which is all an agent needs to invoke and interpret the result.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any new meaning for the parameter 'scan_id' beyond what the schema already provides ('The scan id.').

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'status of a scan', and lists possible status values (queued|running|completed|failed). It also mentions the count of findings, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scanner_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?

The description implies that this tool is for checking scan status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., after starting a scan) or when to prefer alternatives like scanner_get_findings.

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