snipe_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so reasonably: it discloses that a static pass maps unresolved imports to issues while complexity/cycles/swallowed errors become dormant opportunities, that `run` executes a configured command, and that scanning happens automatically on save. It omits permission/rate-limit details but covers the important side-effect behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the no-`run` case, then the `run` case, then the automatic-scan note. Dense but every clause carries information; slight compression would help readability.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers modes, defaults, and side effects adequately. Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, leaving little an agent needs that is missing.

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% for the single `run` parameter, so the description must supply its meaning — and it does, enumerating the accepted values ('tests'|'typecheck'|'lint') and describing the default no-run behavior. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

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 ("Scan for concrete problems") and distinguishes its two modes of operation. It is clear what the tool produces (issues and dormant opportunities), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closely related `findings` sibling.

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?

Explains the conditional usage well: without `run` it does a cheap static pass, and `run='tests'|'typecheck'|'lint'` triggers an actual command. It also notes automatic index-delta scanning on save. No explicit when-not or named alternative among siblings, but the mode selection is clear.

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