Analyze Code Quality

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Scan' hints at a read-only operation, but the description does not state that the tool does not modify the repository, how it treats branches, or any operational constraints. This is a meaningful gap for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and scope, with no filler, tautology, or redundant restatement of the title.

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 schema and output schema cover parameters and return shape, and the tool is simple enough that a basic call can be made. However, the lack of usage routing and behavioral disclosure among a large sibling group leaves the overall context incomplete.

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% and both parameters (repo_path, branch) are already documented with clear descriptions and a default. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Scan a repository') and names concrete metrics (complexity, duplication, smells), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like quality_hotspot_detection or quality_recommendations, so it falls short of full sibling distinction.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs repository-level code quality metrics. There is no explicit 'use when' guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to siblings such as quality_hotspot_detection for more targeted analysis.

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