scan_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a read-only viewing operation scoped to the current session and that grades and scores are included. It does not mention ordering, pagination behavior beyond the schema default, or what happens when no scans exist, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every clause adds useful information about the operation's scope and returned data.

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 history-listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, scope, and returned content. The only notable omission is output ordering or default behavior of the history list, but that is a minor gap for this level of complexity.

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% for the only parameter, 'limit', so the schema already fully documents its meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('view') and a specific resource ('history of security scans performed in this session') and even states what the results contain ('grades and scores'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scan_url or assess_risk, which initiate or evaluate scans rather than retrieve past history.

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 phrase 'history of security scans performed in this session' makes the intended use clear: the agent should call this when it needs previously generated scan results rather than running a new scan. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidance.

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