list_scans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions optional pagination, sorting, and filtering, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or disclose any limitations or side effects. For a list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'List scans with optional pagination, sorting, and filtering'. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and structurally effective.

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 a simple list operation with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core functionality and parameter options, but it does not mention what the response looks like, how to interpret results, or specific domain context. Given the simplicity, this is acceptable but leaves some room for improvement.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (size, sort, index). The description references these concepts (pagination, sorting, filtering) but adds no additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action (List) and the resource (scans). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like get_scan or submit_scan, though it does not explicitly exclude other list tools. The mention of pagination, sorting, and filtering adds scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_scan (for a single scan) or other list tools (list_vulnerabilities, list_engines). The description only says 'List scans', which implies the use case but does not provide explicit context or exclusions.

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