control_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral implications. It merely lists actions without explaining effects, differences between stop and cancel, reversibility, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a tool that mutates scan state.

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, front-loaded sentence communicates the essential purpose and actions with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must convey return behavior, error conditions, and action-specific nuances. It does none of these. While the parameter list is simple, the semantic distinctions between STOP and CANCEL are left unexplained, making the description incomplete for safe autonomous invocation.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, including an enum for action. The description adds nothing beyond restating the enum values. With this coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional semantic value is provided.

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 ('control') and resource ('running scan'), and enumerates the exact actions (pause, resume, stop, cancel). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_scan, get_scan, and delete_scan.

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 usage for controlling a running scan's lifecycle, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_scan or get_scan. The context is clear but exclusions or alternatives are not mentioned.

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