ecosystem_scan

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: runs 8-10 queries, deduplicates, filters by min_stars, excludes known repos, sets needs_deep_review for stars < 15000, auto-classifies relevance_category, returns counts, and explains dry_run mode. 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear first sentence, a bullet-like list of queries, and additional details. It is informative without being overly verbose, earning its length.

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 complexity of scanning and updating, the description covers input (parameters), internal process (queries, filtering), output (return format), and dry_run mode. No mention of rate limits or auth, but overall complete for a tool with output schema.

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%, but the description mentions min_stars in the first line and dry_run at the end, adding basic context. However, it does not fully explain parameter semantics like accepted ranges or specific behavior for each value.

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 verb 'scan', the resource 'popular Claude ecosystem repos', and the action 'update ecosystem_repo_profiles'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ecosystem_scan_status by specifying it performs the actual scan and DB update.

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 scanning repos and updating profiles, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ecosystem_scan_status for progress, ecosystem_scan_history for past scans). No when-not-to guidance.

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