o360_scan_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the upload, waiting, and returning of findings, plus typical duration, which gives a good sense of the operation. It does not mention potential side effects like data being sent to Offensive360 cloud or what happens on timeout, but the main behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds value: what it does, how it works, and expected duration. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 the tool's purpose, process, output format, and timing, which is sufficient for a scanning tool. Given the schema fully documents parameters and the description explains the workflow, it is quite complete. It could optionally mention the sibling tool for status checks, but that's not essential.

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?

All four parameters are already described in the schema (path, exclude, project_name, timeout_seconds), so the description doesn't need to add much. The description itself does not elaborate on parameter formats or default behavior beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 runs an Offensive360 SAST scan on a local directory, listing capabilities (60+ languages, taint/data-flow analysis) and expected output (findings with file/line, severity, remediation). It distinguishes from sibling o360_scan_status by describing the scan-trigger behavior rather than status checking.

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 gives context on what the tool does (uploads zip, waits, returns findings) and typical duration, which implies it's for running a full scan. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus o360_scan_status, nor any prerequisites or exclusions for using this tool.

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