Scan my runtime tools

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

Beyond the annotations, it explicitly discloses that the scan is static, makes no network requests, performs no tool execution, and produces an unverified self-assessed exposure posture. These are important behavioral traits and reliability caveats that an agent would not know from the annotations alone.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The primary scan behavior is front-loaded, followed by the safety and verification caveats.

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 description, annotations, and fully covered schema give enough to call the tool correctly. It does not describe return shape, though no output schema exists, and it omits guidance relative to the sibling tool.

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 explains all three parameters in detail. The description reinforces the tools parameter behavior, but adds no further meaning for emit_record or suggest_policy beyond what the schema 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 gives a specific verb and resource: statically scans a supplied live tool manifest or local agent configs when omitted. It is clearer than a generic 'scan' description, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling vet_tools_before_attach.

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?

It clearly states the primary usage context: scan a supplied live tool manifest, or fall back to bounded local agent config discovery when omitted. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over vet_tools_before_attach or provide exclusions.

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