vibescan_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately discloses local scanning and return fields, but omits details on side effects (e.g., file modifications, temporary files) or permissions needed. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet points, and separate parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary text.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core scanning behavior and output fields. It is mostly complete but could detail scanning scope (e.g., recursion, symlinks) for full clarity.

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?

The description explains both parameters clearly, compensating for the 0% schema coverage. It provides meaningful defaults and lists valid severity levels. However, it could be more precise (e.g., exact case-sensitive values).

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 clearly states 'Scan a project directory for leaked secrets and security issues' and lists specific detection categories. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'vibescan_rules', which could be used for rule management.

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 parameter guidance and a privacy note about local scanning, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions. There is no comparison to alternatives or exclusions.

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