get_netscans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—it doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or whether the list includes all scans or only recent ones. With annotations covering the safety aspects, a 3 is appropriate since the description adds minimal value but doesn't contradict anything.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation. However, it could have used the space to add sibling differentiation or usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and full annotation coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any context about what a 'netscan' is, how results are ordered, or how this differs from get_netscan. Given the sibling ambiguity and no output schema, a bit more context would be valuable.

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 100%—the only parameter 'limit' is described as 'Max results' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 network scans' uses a specific verb and resource, making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_netscan' (singular), which likely retrieves a single scan, nor from 'run_netscan' which initiates one. The plural form implies a list operation, but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate it from the singular sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_netscan or run_netscan. The description simply states what it does without any context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer that this is for listing multiple scans rather than retrieving a specific one.

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