wait_for_scan_completion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully conveys the polling mechanism and timeout concept, but omits critical behavioral details: whether the tool blocks execution during waiting, what specific value/object is returned upon completion vs. timeout, and whether timeout raises an exception or returns a specific status.

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?

Highly efficient structure with zero waste. The description uses two sentences for purpose and context, followed by a clean Args section that mirrors the schema parameters exactly. Information density is high with no filler text.

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?

Given the 3-parameter complexity with 0% schema coverage, the description successfully documents all inputs. Since an output schema exists, the description appropriately doesn't detail return values, though it could briefly mention what successful completion yields (e.g., final scan status) to aid agent decision-making.

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The Args section clearly defines all three parameters: 'task_id' is contextualized as coming from 'an initiated scan,' and both optional parameters include their default values with helpful unit explanations ('default: 3600 = 1 hour'). This provides complete semantic meaning missing from the structured schema.

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 'Poll scan progress until the scan completes or times out,' specifying the verb (poll), resource (scan progress), and termination conditions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'check_security_scan_progress,' which likely performs a single check rather than continuous polling.

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 provides context with 'Useful for long-running scans in CI/CD,' indicating appropriate usage scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this (e.g., for quick checks) or mention of the sibling 'check_security_scan_progress' as a lightweight alternative.

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