get_nessus_scan_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing beyond the operation itself. The word 'Get' implies a read, but there is no statement about permissions, whether historical vs live data is returned, or any scope limits, leaving the agent to guess at behavior for an undocumented 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is appropriately sized for a simple getter. It is arguably too terse for the surrounding tool family, but there is no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema covers return values, so the description needn't explain them, but with 0% parameter documentation and four or more overlapping scan siblings, the definition leaves gaps an agent must resolve by trial. For a tool in a crowded namespace, more differentiation and parameter context is needed.

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 0% for the single required scan_id parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains where scan_id comes from (e.g. list_nessus_scans) or its format, adding no meaning beyond the bare schema entry.

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 (Get) and resource (a Nessus scan) and adds scope via 'details and latest results', which hints it returns current state rather than history. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_nessus_scan_status, get_nessus_scan_history_details, or get_nessus_host_details, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the several other scan-related siblings, nor any prerequisite (e.g. a completed scan, a valid scan_id). The sentence describes the operation but does nothing to route the agent.

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