scoutsuite_scan

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 does disclose that the tool writes a report to report_dir/scoutsuite-report/, requires pre-configured credentials, and is long-running. However, it does not explicitly state whether the audit is read-only or whether it makes any changes to the cloud environment, which is a notable omission for a security audit tool.

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 well-structured with clear Args, Returns, and Note sections. Every line provides useful information, no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently organized.

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 (multi-cloud, multiple parameters, long-running) and lack of annotations, the description covers all essential contextual aspects: credential requirements, output location, time expectations, and return value summary. The presence of an output schema partially reduces the need to explain returns, but the description still gives a concise overview.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter is explained, including which provider it applies to (profile for AWS, project for GCP, subscription for Azure) and valid values for provider. Even timeout is mentioned, though its unit is not specified. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with 'Perform a cloud security audit using ScoutSuite,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling tools like prowler_scan by naming the actual technology (ScoutSuite) and the domain (cloud security audit).

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 prerequisites (e.g., cloud credentials) and caveats (long-running, 5-30 minutes) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like prowler_scan or checkov_scan. There is no mention of specific scenarios where ScoutSuite is preferred or when another tool should be chosen.

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