get_scan_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or raw output, or what happens with invalid run IDs. The description is too minimal to provide adequate 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 extremely concise with just one sentence. While this is efficient, it may be too minimal given the lack of annotations and sibling tools that could cause confusion. Every word earns its place, but more context might be warranted.

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 complexity of scan operations, multiple sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'details' means, how this differs from other scan-related tools, or what format the return value takes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'run_id' documented as 'Scan run ID'. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Get details for a scan run' clearly states the action (get) and resource (scan run details), but it's vague about what specific details are retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'get_scan_results' or 'list_scan_runs' which might also provide scan-related information.

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. With siblings like 'get_scan_results', 'list_scan_runs', and 'trigger_scan_run', there's no indication whether this tool should be used for metadata versus results, single runs versus lists, or before/after triggering scans.

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