second_look

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry all behavioral information. It only says 're-run' and 'bounded template scan,' which hints at a read-only operation but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or return behavior. This is sparse coverage that leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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, tight sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action ('re-run') and scope ('bounded template scan'). While it is not verbose, its brevity comes at the cost of missing crucial details, so it earns a 4 for clarity of structure but not a 5.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely under-informed. It does not explain what an 'engagement' or 'card' is, what a 'template scan' yields, or how to interpret results. For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to call it correctly without additional context.

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 coverage is 0% (parameters have no descriptions), and the description does not compensate. It mentions 'single card URL,' implying card_id is a URL, but leaves engagement_id unexplained. The agent must infer parameter purpose and types from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 specific verb ('re-run'), resource ('bounded template scan'), and object ('single card URL'), making the tool's core function clear. It distinguishes implicitly from siblings like execute_proof or execute_wave by emphasizing a 'second look' on a single card, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 're-run' implies a use case where a previous scan already occurred and a refresh is needed, offering some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit mention of when to choose this tool over siblings, and no exclusions are stated. The guidance is present but implicit.

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