Scan Domains

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether the scan runs synchronously or returns a job handle, what permissions or rate limits apply, or what happens to results between runs. The phrase 'debug exposures' is undefined and gives no sense of what is actually detected or how invasive the scan is.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than density. There is nothing structurally wrong, just very little content.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a four-parameter scanning tool with a job-based sibling set, the definition omits the execution model, the meaning of suspected findings, and timeout behavior. The agent cannot tell whether it will receive results directly or a job to poll.

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?

All four parameters have zero schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. Critically, 'wait' (default true) implies a synchronous-vs-job execution mode that ties directly to the get_job and list_jobs siblings, and 'include_suspected' implies a confidence threshold, yet neither behavior is clarified anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: scans a list of domains for exposed secrets and debug exposures. The domain-based scope implicitly separates it from the sibling scan_file, but it never names that alternative, so the differentiation is left for the agent to infer.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to pick this tool over scan_file or when to follow up with get_job or list_jobs. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the sibling names.

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