scan_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait, and supports multi-account scanning. However, it does not detail side effects, permissions, or error behavior, which is minimal for a scan tool.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and every word contributes value.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description could provide more guidance on return format, error handling, and parameter dependencies (e.g., account_ids with org_mode). It mentions multi-account but lacks completeness for safe 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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that group is a 'predefined group' for scenarios, but does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema already includes.

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 a specific scenario, with examples (MLPS compliance, network defense). It distinguishes from sibling tools like individual scan_* tools by emphasizing 'predefined group'.

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 implies usage for specific scenarios and mentions multi-account support, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like scan_all or individual scans. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions.

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