scan_group

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares 'Read-only,' indicating no mutations, and mentions multi-account support. It does not detail rate limits or output format, but for a scanning tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences: first explains the tool's purpose with examples, second adds read-only and multi-account support. No wasted words, front-loaded key information.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description adequately explains what the tool does and its key behavioral traits. It could mention that results are stored or returned, but it's not essential for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, with all 6 parameters described in the schema. The description adds little beyond 'Run a predefined group...' and does not elaborate on parameter values beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 runs a predefined group of security scanners for specific scenarios like MLPS compliance or network defense. It differentiates from sibling tools (e.g., scan_all, individual scanners) by focusing on scenario-based grouping.

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 by mentioning 'for a specific scenario' and 'supports multi-account org scanning,' implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like scan_all or individual scanners, though the context makes it clear.

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