get_scan_job

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

Annotations already confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns both status and result when complete, implying possible polling behavior. However, it does not explain what happens if the job is still running (e.g., returns progressive status) or if the job_id is invalid.

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 concise sentence of 12 words, front-loading the essential action and result without any superfluous content.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers basic purpose but lacks details on behavior during incomplete jobs, error states, or how to interpret results. Annotations partially compensate but the description could be more complete.

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 single required parameter 'job_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain its format, how to obtain it, or any validation rules. The description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'status and result of one background scan'. It explicitly limits to a single scan job, distinguishing it from list tools like 'list_scan_jobs'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_scan_status' or 'list_scan_jobs'. There is no mention of prerequisites, polling frequency, or error handling.

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