get_nessus_scan_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that this is a read-like 'get' operation, but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, whether the status is polled or real-time, or any other operational trait.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple single-parameter getter.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations, no parameter description, and many sibling tools, the definition lacks enough context to fully disambiguate usage or parameter sourcing.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the required scan_id parameter beyond implying it identifies a Nessus scan. It adds almost no meaning beyond the schema's 'integer' 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get the current status of a Nessus scan.' The word 'current' implicitly separates it from scan history and details tools, but it does not explicitly name or exclude any sibling, leaving some ambiguity with get_nessus_scan_details.

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 use this tool versus siblings like get_nessus_scan_details or get_nessus_scan_history. The intended use is implied by 'current status,' but no context, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided.

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