Code Quality Scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe and non-modifying. The description adds the specific focus of the scan, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe output format, performance, or any other behavioral aspect beyond the scan scope, so it does not significantly enrich the safety profile already provided.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the tool's purpose and promptly lists the concrete checks. Every piece of information earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. The front-loaded action and scope make it immediately graspable.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the specific issues it detects. It lacks any mention of the return format or interpretation of results, but since it's a read-only scan and the checks are explicitly listed, an agent can reason about its use. The absence of usage guidance relative to siblings is the primary gap, but the description itself is fairly complete for a straightforward scan 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?

The only parameter, 'path', is fully described in the schema as 'Absolute path to the repository root' (100% schema description coverage). The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, such as constraints or usage nuances. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already covers the parameter.

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 identifies the tool as a 'code quality scan' and enumerates the specific checks it performs (empty catch blocks, console.log, @ts-ignore, any types, TODO debt, oversized files). This is a specific verb ('scan') plus resource ('code quality') with distinct scope, and the list of checks differentiates it from siblings like security_scan or type_coverage.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. With dozens of similar scan tools (biome_check, verify_all, full_diagnose, etc.), the description offers no context about when this one is appropriate, when it is not, or what alternatives exist. It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when to pick it.

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