import_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions write scope and rate limits, but omits key behaviors like auto-creation of product/engagement (auto_create_context defaults true), deduplication, and closing old findings. These are critical for an agent to understand side effects.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary constraints without extraneous information, earning its sentences.

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 19 parameters and an output schema, the description fails to provide an overview of the import workflow, return value expectations, or how auto-creation and deduplication integrate. The schema descriptions are detailed but the tool-level context is missing.

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 tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. No extra context or examples are given.

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 verb 'Import' and the resource 'scan report' into 'DefectDojo', leaving no ambiguity about the tool's primary function. It distinguishes from sibling 'reimport_scan' through the verb 'import' vs 'reimport'.

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 mentions prerequisites ('Requires write scope') and constraints ('Rate-limited'), but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reimport_scan'. The context for appropriate usage is implied but not explicit.

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