scan_codebase_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool returns a JSON object with structure information and does not interpret code. However, it omits details about potential errors, performance implications, or edge cases like non-existent paths.

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 concise, using a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose, a bullet list of return contents, and explicit parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary information: what the tool does, what it returns, how to use parameters, and how it fits with sibling tools. No obvious gaps remain.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: it explains that 'project_path' is an absolute or relative path and that 'max_depth' defaults to 3. The schema itself has titles but no descriptions, so the description compensates effectively for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the specific verb 'scan' and resource 'project directory', clearly stating it returns a structural overview. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_c4_diagram_tool' and 'get_c4_reference_tool', which focus on diagram generation rather than codebase scanning.

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'use this as a starting point for analysis, then read specific files to understand the architecture.' It also states what the tool does NOT do ('Does NOT interpret code'), helping the agent choose appropriate follow-up actions.

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