scan_application

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

The description says 'Scan', which suggests a read-only analytical operation, but it never explicitly states that the tool does not modify files, whether it requires network access, or what happens for invalid paths or non-Python directories. With no annotations to cover the safety profile, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The action, target, and result are all front-loaded, and every word contributes useful information.

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?

The tool is simple, with one parameter and an output schema available, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given no annotations and unclear path semantics, the description is not fully complete. It adequately conveys the core operation but leaves behavior and parameter details ambiguous.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'path', and schema description coverage is 0%. The description infers that the path points to a local Python application, but it does not clarify whether the path should be a directory, a file, a project root, or what format is expected. It adds minimal meaning beyond the bare string type.

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 names a specific action ('Scan'), a clear resource ('a local Python application'), and a specific outcome ('a normalized coupling inventory'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling migration and validation tools, which focus on generating plans, research requests, or evaluations rather than scanning code into an inventory.

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 intended use case is implied: use this when you need to scan a local Python application and produce a coupling inventory. However, the description does not explicitly say when it should or should not be used compared to the many sibling tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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