get_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: no scan quota is consumed, results are limited to this account, and access is gated by the key's current tier. It omits anything about response shape, freshness, or pagination, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier source, then the quota-saving rationale and access constraints. The duplicated Russian line is redundant for a single-language reader, though it appears to be a deliberate localization choice rather than filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (saved findings), where the id comes from, quota behavior, and access gating, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the absence of any hint about result contents or freshness leaves a small gap.

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% and the single scan_id parameter is already documented as a uuid from scan_site/list_scans, which the description largely repeats. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no new format or constraint detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a previously saved ScanBase scan result') and scopes it to the scan_id identifier, which cleanly separates it from list_scans (enumerate) and scan_site (create a new scan). The named siblings remove any ambiguity about which tool fetches an existing result.

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?

'Use to re-read findings without spending a new scan' gives a clear use condition and implicitly routes the agent away from scan_site when re-reads are wanted. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use' statement or a named alternative for when the scan_id is unknown, so it is not a full 5.

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