trigger_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action 'trigger' but does not describe whether the scan runs synchronously/asynchronously, if it is destructive, or what happens upon trigger. Minimal behavioral info.

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 concise: a single action sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters with brief explanations. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose.

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 description covers parameter semantics but omits behavioral context (e.g., async, return values, rate limits). An output schema exists, so return value details are not expected, but other completeness aspects are lacking.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful context for each parameter (e.g., 'What to scan and why' for description, 'JSON array of {"provider", "account_id", "regions"} objects' for cloud_accounts). This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Trigger a manual infrastructure mapping scan'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_scan_schedule or list_scan_schedules by emphasizing the 'manual' trigger.

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?

The description implies on-demand usage through the word 'manual', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. No guidance on when not to use it.

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