contentrain_scan

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. Description adds 'Read-only — no changes to disk or git', 'MCP finds strings deterministically; the agent decides what is content', and explains mode behaviors, which are beyond annotation defaults.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, efficiently covers modes, safety, determinism, and workflow. No fluff, but could be slightly more structured with bullet points for modes.

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?

Covers purpose, modes, safety, and workflow for a complex tool (3 modes, 8 optional params). Lacks output format details, but modes are described sufficiently for agent to understand what each returns. No output schema, so description must compensate, and it does adequately.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds contextual grouping (e.g., 'limit' and 'offset' for candidates mode) and defaults, but does not significantly enhance meaning 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?

Clearly states tool scans source code for content strings, lists three distinct modes ('graph', 'candidates', 'summary'), and is distinguished from sibling tools (e.g., contentrain_apply, contentrain_delete) which are write operations.

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?

Provides a recommended workflow: start with 'summary' or 'graph' then paginate 'candidates'. Explicitly notes read-only nature, helping agent decide when to use. No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but siblings are clearly different in purpose.

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