scan_project

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond them: it never executes project code, and results are findings with file:line plus fixes rather than source code. It does not mention runtime cost or result volume for what is a potentially slow, network-touching scan, so it just misses a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening clause, and both the safety disclaimer and the return-format note come after. The long parenthetical check inventory is dense but each item helps an agent judge coverage, though it flattens into a single run-on sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to state what is returned (findings with file:line and fixes, never source code) and what is not done (no code execution). It leaves open how results are paginated or how long a scan takes, which matters for a tool that may make network calls.

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 100%, so the schema already documents path, offline, and min_severity. The description adds only an indirect hint about severities via the check list and does not clarify the offline/network interaction or severity filtering beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the specific resource (React Native / Expo project) and verb (health check) and then enumerates the exact check categories, so an agent can distinguish it from focused siblings like security_audit, check_library, or measure_bundle without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly gives a triggering condition: 'run it before installing or starting a project you did not write.' That is real when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternative tool and offers no when-not-to-use rule, so sibling routing (e.g. full scan vs. security_audit) is left to inference.

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