trigger_scan_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool triggers a scan run, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe effects (e.g., resource consumption, time to complete), permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 triggering a scan run (a mutation with no annotations, 2 parameters, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, error handling, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively.

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 50% (only 'scan_id' has a description), and the description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. It implies 'scan_id' is for an existing configuration but doesn't explain format or sourcing. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'idempotency_key' parameter.

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 action ('trigger') and resource ('scan run for an existing scan configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_scan_run' or 'list_scan_runs', which also deal with scan runs but for retrieval rather than initiation.

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 minimal guidance by implying usage when a scan configuration exists, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_scan' for new scans or 'get_scan_run' for checking status. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included.

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