scan_repo_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only implies a read-only operation ('Scan') but does not specify whether it modifies anything, what analysis it performs, or any limitations like repo size or performance impact. This is insufficient for a tool with no safety hints.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical context needed for correct tool use. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise; a short description that says almost nothing is not effective. The sentence does not earn its place because it does not inform the user adequately.

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?

This tool has four parameters, no annotations, and overlapping sibling tools, yet the description provides no context for parameter usage, analysis scope, or relationship to other tools. Even with an output schema, the agent cannot confidently select or invoke this tool correctly. The description is grossly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about the four parameters (root_path, languages, max_depth, include_tests). The agent has no guidance on how to fill these fields or what values are expected. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a clear verb ('Scan') and resource ('a repository') with an expected output ('structured analysis report'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like infer_architecture_tool or score_risk_tool, which also analyze repositories. The core purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. Sibling tools such as infer_architecture_tool, score_risk_tool, and get_health_score_tool likely overlap in scope, but the description provides no exclusions or alternatives. Users are left to guess the appropriate context.

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