Sekrd Security Scanner

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves results for a previous scan, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the scan ID is invalid), response format, or any rate limits. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves scan results. It doesn't explain what the results include (e.g., status, findings, metadata), potential errors, or how to interpret outputs, leaving significant gaps in context for effective use by an AI agent.

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 the single parameter 'scan_id' documented as 'Scan ID returned by scan_url'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reiterating that it's for a 'previous scan by its ID'. Since the schema already provides adequate parameter details, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get results') and resource ('a previous scan by its ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_findings' or 'scan_url', which would require mentioning this tool retrieves results for a specific scan rather than listing all findings or initiating new scans.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_findings' or 'scan_url'. It mentions the scan ID is 'returned by scan_url', which implies a prerequisite but doesn't explicitly state usage contexts, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings.

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