Ingest External Scanner Report

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it explicitly states the mutation side effects, including bulk-ingesting findings and resolving open findings absent from the batch, and notes the required scope. It also clarifies that parse_only keeps it a read. This is rich behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by a focused paragraph on behavior. Every sentence conveys necessary information without waste.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. It covers core aspects: accepted formats, non-execution, write gating, authentication scope, and the read-only parse_only path. This is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the behavior implied by parse_only (read vs. write) and reconcile_absent (resolving absent findings), which goes beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb ('Ingest') and resource ('external SARIF, SBOM, or scanner JSON'), and the phrase 'without executing its producer' distinguishes it from scanning tools. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'scan' and 'generate_sbom'.

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 explains the conditional write behavior ('mutates the control plane when parse_only is false') and notes the destructive-action gating with findings:write scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide direct 'use when vs. instead of' guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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