scan

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key traits: offline operation, no AI involvement, default output is high-confidence JSON findings, and includeAll flag for medium/review findings. It does not mention permissions or performance, but for a read-only scan this is sufficient.

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 two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The main action and key differentiators are front-loaded, making it easy for an AI to parse quickly.

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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema, no siblings), the description covers purpose, parameters, usage timing, and output format completely. No gaps remain for effective invocation.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the effect of includeAll (include medium/review findings) and clarifies default behavior (high-confidence). This enhances understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool scans project directories for security and ship-readiness issues, offline and without AI, and returns findings as JSON. The verb 'scan' and resource 'project directory' are specific, and the purpose is unambiguous even without sibling differentiation.

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 explicit instruction 'Run before declaring a coding task done' provides clear when-to-use guidance. No alternatives or when-not-to-use are given, but the context of no sibling tools makes this less critical.

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