get_signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the 200-item cap, the ordering (by source count then velocity), and public access. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple read operation, the disclosed traits are valuable.

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?

One sentence with no redundant words. Each clause adds value: the resource ('signals'), scope ('for a scan'), limit ('max 200'), ordering, and access level ('Public'). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains highly scannable.

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 simple 2-parameter schema and absence of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the key return constraints and access level. A minor gap is not explaining what 'signals' are or how they relate to scan results, but sibling context and schema descriptions mitigate this.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on scanId or stage beyond what the schema already provides, such as scanning being from list_scans and stage being a filter. No additional semantic value is added.

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 returns 'Raw signals for a scan' with specific limitations (max 200, ordering). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scans or get_scan, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The verb is implied rather than stated (e.g., 'Retrieve'), but the resource and scope are 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?

The description implies usage: use this when you need raw signals for a scan. It mentions 'Public' and ordering, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_scan or get_trending. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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