guardian_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses prerequisite (Wazuh for certain scans) and type definitions, but does not mention side effects, duration, or mutability. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences: first states high-level purpose, second details types and prerequisites. No redundant words, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose, scan types, and prerequisites. It lacks a hint about expected output or return format, but is otherwise complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 50% (target_path has a description, scan_type does not). The description adds meaning by defining each enum value (e.g., 'quick' means port+listener exposure), which goes beyond the schema and helps select the correct type.

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 uses a specific verb 'Trigger' and identifies the resource as 'security scan on the sovereign infrastructure'. It lists distinct scan types (quick, malware, vulnerability, network) with brief definitions, clearly differentiating from sibling tools like guardian_audit or guardian_status.

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 scan type: 'quick (port + listener exposure)' and others requiring 'Wazuh — Phase 1+'. It provides context for selection but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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