list_scans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states it lists scan history and mentions a limit of ≤100, but doesn't clarify access permissions, pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or what happens if no scans exist. For a listing tool with zero annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 packs substantial information into a couple of sentences, but the inclusion of a duplicate Russian translation adds unnecessary length without new information for most agents. It's front-loaded with the core purpose but could be more concise by removing the redundant translation.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what fields are returned and provides usage contexts. However, it lacks behavioral details like default sort order, pagination limits on total results, or permission requirements, leaving some gaps for an agent needing to invoke it correctly.

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%, with both page and per_page clearly documented (defaults, max values). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 names the specific resource (ScanBase scan history) and scope (this account, last ≤100), and enumerates the returned fields. It's distinguishable from siblings like get_scan or scan_site, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear use cases: find a past scan_id, compare scores over time, or check scans across projects. These imply when to use it versus get_scan (single scan) or scan_site (new scan), but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives are stated. Strong contextual guidance without full when-not coverage.

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