list_nessus_scans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state that it's safe, non-mutating, or describe return format. Since an output schema exists, return details are handled elsewhere, but safety profile is not confirmed.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (no params, output schema exists) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't clarify the scope (e.g., all scans across folders?) or relationship to sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 tool has zero parameters, making parameter semantics a non-issue. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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 (List) and resource (scans configured in Nessus), which clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like launch_nessus_scan and stop_nessus_scan. However, it doesn't differentiate from get_nessus_scan_details or list_nessus_scan_history, which are related read operations.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_nessus_scan_details or get_nessus_scan_status. The description provides no context about use cases or exclusions.

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