launch_nessus_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Using its configured targets' is a useful detail (no target args needed), but it omits whether the launch is synchronous, whether it triggers side effects like network traffic, permission requirements, or error behavior for an invalid scan_id.

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 waste. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity borders on under-specification, which is penalized under contextual completeness rather than here.

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 exists so return values need not be explained, but this is an action tool with no annotations, an undocumented required parameter, and no note on side effects, preconditions, or failure handling. It is too thin for a scan-launching operation.

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% and the sole parameter scan_id is not mentioned in the description at all. The description must compensate for the undocumented parameter but does not, leaving the agent to infer that scan_id identifies a pre-existing scan.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: launching a Nessus scan. The verb 'launch' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling stop_nessus_scan, but the description never explicitly differentiates scope from related tools like list_nessus_scans or get_nessus_scan_status.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the scan must already exist and be configured), and no mention of alternatives. The agent gets no help deciding when this is the right tool versus inspecting or stopping a scan.

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