scanner_start_scan

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that the tool queues a scan, returns a scan_id and status, and requires polling. It does not detail response structure or error conditions, but provides sufficient behavioral context for a queueing tool.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core action and prerequisites, then add the workflow. No fluff; every sentence is informative.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what, prerequisites, and follow-up steps. It lacks details on error handling or concurrency limits, but remains complete enough for effective use.

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 100%, and the description adds context by emphasizing the prerequisite for target_id (registered and verified). It also mentions the return value (scan_id, status) which ties to parameters indirectly.

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 tool queues a security scan over a previously registered and verified target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scanner_get_scan_status and scanner_get_findings by describing the workflow.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites (target must be registered and verified) and provides a clear workflow: queue, then poll scanner_get_scan_status, then read scanner_get_findings. This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool.

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