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

Adds genuine context beyond annotations: the scan reads the remote default branch, so local unpushed edits are invisible — important for interpreting results. Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description does not explain that each call launches a new, non-idempotent scan job or what it returns.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most decision-relevant caveat. No filler, though the terseness leaves no room for the prerequisite and return-value information an agent needs.

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?

For a tool that triggers a new non-idempotent scan with three required parameters and no output schema, the description omits what it returns (a new scan id?), whether the operation is async, and how previous_scan_id / request_id are used. Substantial gaps remain.

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 4 parameters, and the description names none of them. 'SAME repository' hints that previous_scan_id anchors the target, but workspace_token and request_id are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (rescan) and a specific resource scope (the SAME repository default branch), with 'SAME' signaling it reuses an existing repository context rather than picking a new one. This implicitly distinguishes it from start_scan, though that sibling is never named.

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 phrase 'Only published changes are visible; unpushed edits are not' implies when a rescan is worthwhile (after changes are pushed), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no mention of start_scan as the alternative for a different repository.

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