scanner_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only informational operation (getting info), which implies no side effects. However, it doesn't disclose whether the info reflects current runtime state, whether it requires any setup, or whether it might return stale/cached data. For a simple info tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates the specific data fields. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name. The structure is ideal for an agent scanning descriptions 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema info tool, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and implies it's a read-only metadata query. The only minor gap is not stating whether the info is dynamic (current runtime state) or static (compiled configuration), but this is unlikely to affect correct invocation since there are no parameters to choose.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by listing exactly what information will be returned (version, pattern count, keyword count, supported channels), which gives the agent a clear expectation of the output. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that baseline by explaining what the tool provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SUNGLASSES scanner info'), and enumerates the exact fields returned: version, pattern count, keyword count, supported channels. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools scan_text and scan_file, which perform scanning operations rather than returning scanner metadata.

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 this is an informational tool for retrieving scanner configuration/status, which is distinct from the scanning operations of its siblings. It doesn't explicitly state 'use this when you need scanner metadata rather than performing a scan,' but the field list makes the context clear. No exclusions or alternatives are named, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent would not confuse it with scan_text or scan_file.

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