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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two critical behavioral facts: no scan is started and no credits are spent. Beyond that it is silent on permissions, rate limiting, idempotency, and what a 'plan' result contains, which leaves meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the key constraint about not spending credits is front-loaded in the second sentence. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the cause of the missing detail elsewhere.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it is too thin for a tool whose whole purpose is to return a scoping plan. It also does not address the mode enum or what the agent should do with the plan once produced, and the Turkish-only text is misaligned with the English tool and parameter names.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does map loosely onto all three parameters by naming file, live site and mode, but it never explains that 'files'/'sites' are numeric counts, gives no hints on sensible values or limits, and leaves the five mode enum values (auto, source, semantic, infrastructure, web) entirely unexplained.

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 names a concrete action and inputs ('Dosya, canlı site ve mod için krediye bağlı tarama kapsamını planlar'), but 'planlar' is vague about what is actually produced or returned. It does not explain the 'guided_interactive' aspect of the tool name, so an agent cannot fully tell what this returns versus a real scan tool.

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 negative framing 'Tarama başlatmaz ve kredi harcamaz' implies this should be called before committing credits, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to use it explicitly, gives no prerequisites, and does not mention the only sibling (vulkill_check_credits) as an alternative or complement.

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