pre_commit_safety_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description only states that the tool is non-mutating. It does not explain what a 'safety scan' entails, what checks are performed, or what the output/return value looks like. More behavioral details are needed for a scan tool.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and efficiently conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on return values, prerequisites (e.g., repo setup), or what 'public-repo' implies. Additional context about the scan process would improve completeness.

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 low (33%). The description adds context by listing the three modes (staged, working-tree, paths) corresponding to the 'mode' enum, but does not elaborate on the 'paths' parameter or the meaning of 'root'. This provides moderate added value 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 action ('Run public-repo safety scans'), specifies the resource ('staged files, working-tree changes, or selected paths'), and explicitly notes that it does not stage or commit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_diff or git_status.

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 description implies usage for running safety scans without staging or committing, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools for actual staging or committing.

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