contentrain_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces 'Read-only — no changes to disk or git.' It adds insight: 'MCP finds strings deterministically; the agent decides what is content.' No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: action, modes, read-only guarantee, workflow recommendation. No filler. Front-loaded with the primary verb and resource.

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 8 parameters (all optional) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level context, mode behavior, and a workflow hint. Some details on return formats per mode are implied but not explicit, yet likely adequate for an agent to infer.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the three mode values beyond the enum list (e.g., 'graph builds import/component graph'). It also clarifies pagination parameters (limit, offset) contextually within the 'candidates' mode.

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 explicitly states 'Scan project source code for content strings' and lists three distinct modes with clear explanations (graph, candidates, summary). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like contentrain_apply by emphasizing 'Read-only — no changes to disk or git.'

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 for orientation, then paginate through candidates.' It explains each mode's purpose, aiding selection. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternative sibling tools, but the context of the read-only nature implicitly differentiates.

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