fsv_list_scans

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it partially does by disclosing the returned fields, which implies a safe read. It says nothing about ordering (newest first?), what 'recent' means, whether results are truncated, or pagination behavior for the default limit of 20.

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 tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the optional filter second. Nothing is wasted, though the space saved could have been spent on the undocumented limit parameter.

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-value explanation is not required. Still, for a listing tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description should cover ordering, default limit behavior, and when to use siblings; those gaps keep it at minimum viable.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully specifies that 'target' is a host substring match (a real semantic addition the schema lacks), but it never mentions the 'limit' parameter or its default of 20, leaving one of two params undocumented.

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 ('List') and resource ('recent scans') and enumerates the returned fields (IDs, targets, status, risk grade, finding counts). It implicitly separates itself from the scan-launching sibling fsv_scan, but never names alternatives such as fsv_scan_stats or fsv_get_report to sharpen the boundary.

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 only usage cue is 'Optionally filter by target host substring'; there is no statement of when to prefer this over fsv_scan, fsv_get_report, fsv_scan_stats or fsv_target_trend. An agent must infer that this is the browsing/lookup entry point.

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