scan_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses possible statuses, what happens when done (includes headline result fields and skipped sources due to missing API tokens), and implies it's a read-only status check. It does not mention error/timeout behavior, so not a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first clause states the core purpose, followed by concise status values and a clear 'when done' detail plus a direct next-step instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: status outcomes, key result fields when complete, skipped sources, and recommended follow-up. It lacks a full return schema and edge-case behavior, but is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema provides only a bare 'scan_id' string with 0% coverage. The description adds context that scan_id refers to a scan initiated by scan_target, but does not clarify format, required source, or how to obtain it beyond implication. This partially compensates for the schema gap but is not fully descriptive.

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's purpose: 'Check a scan started by scan_target' with specific status outcomes (running, done, error). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on status checking rather than starting (scan_target), listing (list_scans), reporting (get_report), or credential handling (reveal_credentials).

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 sequencing context ('Check a scan started by scan_target' and 'Then call get_report(scan_id)'), indicating when to use this tool in a workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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