scan_history

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

Given no annotations, the description covers storage location (~/.webability/scans), local vs hosted behavior, and the effect of each parameter. It could mention what happens with invalid id, but overall discloses key behaviors.

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 concise (3 sentences) without wasted words. The first sentence front-loads purpose. Minor improvement could be separating the local/hosted note for clarity, but overall efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description gives enough info on return behavior (result summary vs full result). It addresses the complexity of 3 optional parameters and distinguishes from 13 sibling tools. Lacks error handling details but adequate.

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 descriptions cover 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying that 'id' returns the full stored response and 'filter' matches URL or tool name. This enhances understanding beyond schema.

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 browses past scans, explicitly lists which sibling tools are logged (scan_page, flow_scan, etc.), and distinguishes its role from others by focusing on history rather than 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 explains when to use each parameter: no arguments for recent scans, id for full result, filter for substring matching. It also notes the local-only constraint. Missing explicit 'when not to use' but provides good context.

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