scanner_scan_modes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the useful behavioral detail that the response is a live menu of currently available modes with specific attributes. It does not note that the set of modes is device/browser-dependent (openWorldHint), which is the one piece of context an agent might trip on.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the payload fields, then the usage note. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from annotations.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the fields (mode name, range, point count, file size, scan time, spacing, rate). Complete for a lookup tool; only the dynamic/environment-dependent nature of the list is unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and fully described by its emptiness.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the available scan modes') and immediately clarifies what a scan mode is with the parenthetical 'density/range/time menu'. No sibling tool (scanner_scans, scanner_status, etc.) returns this menu, so the distinction is unambiguous.

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?

'Use these names when starting a scan' gives a concrete downstream usage instruction that tells the agent this is a discovery/lookup step feeding a scan-start call. It stops short of naming the specific scan-starting sibling or stating when not to call it, so it is clear context rather than explicit routing.

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