get_scan_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it returns status but omits details on whether it is idempotent, what statuses are possible, error behavior, or if it requires a completed scan. This is insufficient for an agent to predict outcomes.

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?

A single sentence of 10 words that is immediately informative. No unnecessary words, and the key action and resource are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lacks essential context such as possible return values, error cases, and polling behavior. An agent cannot determine the full response structure or how to interpret the status.

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% for the single parameter report_uuid, which is described as 'UUID returned by the originating scan_* call'. The tool description adds no additional context, so it meets the baseline without adding value.

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 (return) and resource (current status of a previously started scan). It uniquely identifies this tool as a status-checker, distinct from scan-starting siblings (e.g., scan_asana, scan_github) and get_scan_findings.

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 use after a scan_* call but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like get_scan_findings. No prerequisites, polling recommendations, or conditions for use are mentioned.

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