get_scan_execution_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, and 'real-time' suggests current data, but it does not clarify whether the call is non-mutating, what specific metrics are returned, or if there are any rate limits or prerequisites. The 'running or completed' clause adds some context, but transparency remains partial.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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 is simple (1 param, no output schema), but the description leaves 'execution metrics' undefined. It would be more complete with a brief list of example metrics (e.g., progress, duration, status). Given the low complexity, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 100% (scan_id is defined), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema; it just confirms the tool operates on a scan. No further elaboration on the parameter is needed given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('real-time execution metrics for a scan'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_scan' (which likely returns general scan details) and 'control_scan' (which performs actions). It also specifies scope: running or completed scans.

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 when real-time execution metrics are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_scan' or 'get_scan_engine_events'. No exclusions or conditional guidance is provided.

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