scan_target

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond the action 'Run a scan'. It does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or whether the scan is destructive. The '[READ]' prefix is ambiguous and not explained. No annotations are present.

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 very short (one line), which promotes conciseness, but it lacks structure and fails to provide essential information. The '[READ]' prefix adds clutter without clarity.

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 description does not cover what the scan outputs, its safety profile, or how it relates to other tools. Without output schema or annotations, the agent lacks critical context to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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%, and the description merely repeats parameter names ('target' and 'baseline') without explaining their meaning or expected values. The default for 'baseline' hints at its nature but is insufficient.

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 'Run a scan' and identifies the resources 'target' and 'baseline', clearly indicating a comparison operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are all 'get' or 'list' operations, but does not explicitly state this differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like 'list_violations' or 'get_baseline_rules'. No prerequisites or context for usage are provided.

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