zeasm_get_finding_scan_output

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and description echoes 'read-only'. Beyond that, no disclosure of other behaviors (e.g., output size, rate limits, auth needs). The term 'complete scan output' hints at scope but lacks specifics.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. No extraneous words. Highly concise and scannable.

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?

With output schema present, description need not detail returns. It covers core purpose and required inputs (finding_id, org_id). However, could mention that 'service' parameter is optional with default, and perhaps note that finding_id must be obtained from zeasm_list_findings.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. Description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what schema provides, so baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Get complete scan output for a specific EASM finding (read-only)', specifying the verb, resource, and nature. It distinguishes from sibling tools like zeasm_get_finding_details and zeasm_get_finding_evidence by focusing on 'scan output'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling names imply differentiation (details, evidence, list), the description does not clarify context or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not stated.

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