trivy_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It mentions prerequisites (image must be pullable or present), return format (counts and top findings), and severity filter values. It does not cover potential side effects like network calls or resource usage, but it is generally transparent for a scanning 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 Args, Returns, and Note sections, and front-loads the main purpose. Some redundancy exists (severity listed in Args and repeated in Note), but every sentence carries useful information. It is not as tight as a two-sentence description but remains efficient.

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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers inputs, return summary, and a key prerequisite without over-explaining. It could mention error scenarios or network requirements, but for a moderately complex scan wrapper, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: target (image/path/URL), scan_type (with enum-like values), severity format, and timeout override. This meets the 'description must compensate' requirement completely.

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 tool scans container images, filesystems, or repositories for vulnerabilities using Trivy, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling scanners like nuclei_scan or nmap_scan by focusing on container/artifact scanning.

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 clear context on what targets and scan types the tool supports (image, fs, repo, config, sbom), which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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