list_scans

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The mention of returning a JSON string is minimal, and details like pagination or ordering are absent.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, parameter, and return value. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no redundant information.

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 (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. However, it could benefit from mentioning default sorting or whether scans are returned in reverse chronological order, which would aid the agent in using the results. The missing usage guidelines slightly reduce completeness.

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 description explains the only parameter 'limit' with its purpose and default value, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by providing semantic context for the parameter.

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 lists all previous security scans, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_scan_results (which retrieves results of a specific scan) and scan_target (which initiates a scan), making the purpose unmistakable.

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_results for detailed results or scan_target for initiating a scan. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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