trigger_sie_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that apply mode 'modifies files and seals receipts', requires the scope 'sie:scan:invoke', and is governed by Arbiter policy. It also states background execution. It does not cover reversibility or return format, but the key behavioral traits are well covered.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence provides distinct value: modes, background execution, status pointer, permission requirement, and governance seal. No waste or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what will happen, what modes exist, where to check results, what permission is needed, and what side effects occur. For a tool with two optional params and background execution, this is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what 'dry-run' and 'apply' actually do (detect/rank vs apply safe_auto and queue rest), which enriches the parameter semantics. The use_llm parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema already documents it.

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 opens with 'Kick off a fresh SIE scan of the iTechSmart platform,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the tool as the trigger action, contrasting with siblings like get_platform_briefing and get_sie_queue that query status.

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 explains the two modes (dry-run vs apply) and explicitly points to 'check get_platform_briefing for queue count' as a follow-up action, giving clear context for when to invoke the scan. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the alternative is implied.

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