scan_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys a read-oriented scan behavior and the matching criteria, but it does not state whether the tool returns findings, modifies files, or has other side effects, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then narrows the scope with specific identifiers and sinks. Every clause contributes information, with no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly: what to scan, what to look for, and when to run it. It could be improved by stating the result format or confirming it is non-mutating, but nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'path' is already described as an absolute path to a directory or repo. The description adds contextual flavor like 'local' and 'source files,' but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Scan') and resource ('local directory of source files'), and precisely defines what it detects: sensitive identifiers flowing into risky sinks. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling redact_suggest by its purpose, though it never explicitly names or contrasts that 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?

The description provides clear temporal and contextual guidance: run this before code ships, on local source directories, to catch sensitive data going into LLM calls, logging, or analytics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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