create_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' implies a mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., resource consumption, rate limits), response format, or idempotency (despite an 'idempotency_key' parameter). This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke this tool effectively beyond the basic purpose.

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 description coverage is low at 14%, with only 'project_id' documented. The description adds no parameter information beyond the tool name, failing to explain critical inputs like 'keywords', 'type', 'scan_type', or 'recurring_interval'. It doesn't compensate for the schema's gaps, leaving most parameters semantically unclear.

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 'Create a scan configuration' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (scan configuration), but it's vague about what a 'scan configuration' entails. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_scan_run' or 'list_scans', leaving the specific purpose ambiguous beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project from 'list_projects'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'trigger_scan_run' for execution or 'list_scans' for viewing configurations, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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