get_scan_results

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this reasonably well: 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation, and 'false-positive status' indicates what kind of state is included. It does not cover error behavior or edge cases, but nothing suggests side effects or destructive behavior.

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?

A single sentence delivers the core purpose and the most behaviorally important detail. There is no filler, and the information is immediately usable.

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?

The tool has one required parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It covers what the tool reads, the input condition, and an important output nuance. It could mention what happens for incomplete or missing scans, but that is not essential for a simple read tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the scan_id parameter, but it does not explain its semantics beyond the implied 'the scan whose findings are returned.' No format, examples, or additional constraints are provided, so the parameter meaning is left mostly to the schema's name and type.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('completed scan findings'), and an extra distinguishing detail (false-positive status). This clearly separates it from siblings like start_scan or list_scans, and an agent can infer what the tool returns.

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 word 'completed' gives a preconditions signal, so the agent knows results are only meaningful after a scan finishes. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_scan_results over the closely related get_scan tool, nor any stated exclusions.

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