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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral context about when to call it and how to interpret an unchanged commit, but it does not explain the side effects of triggering a rescan or why the operation is not idempotent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the prerequisite condition, and no wasted words. The output categories and the commit caveat are both stated efficiently.

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?

Covers the purpose, output categories, and an important commit-state caveat, but leaves three of four parameters undocumented and does not clarify the non-readonly rescan side effects. With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, it is only minimally complete.

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 0% across four parameters, but the description only explains scan_id. It leaves workspace_token, request_id, and authorized undocumented, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: rescans the same repo against scan_id and lists finding categories. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling rescan tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition: after fixes are pushed to the default branch. It also explains the diagnostic case where the same commit means the fix was not pushed, though it does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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