list_scans

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 the action ('List scans') but doesn't describe traits like whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, returns summaries or full details, or handles errors. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 'List scans for a project' is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, 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 complexity (a list operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, pagination), usage context, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'project_id' documented as 'Project ID'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond this, as it doesn't explain what 'scans' entails (e.g., types, statuses) or how the project_id is used. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 'List scans for a project' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('scans'), with the context 'for a project' providing scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' (which lists projects) and 'list_scan_runs' (which lists scan runs), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_scan_results' or 'get_scan_run', which might retrieve specific scan details. This is clear but lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 valid project_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_scan_runs' (for runs within scans) or 'get_scan_results' (for detailed results). Without such context, users must infer usage from tool names alone.

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