ecosystem_scan_periodic

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and explicitly discloses key behaviors: skipping recently scanned repos, applying filters, marking old repos as archived, and recording runs. It lacks detail on side effects or authorization needs, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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: a short introductory sentence followed by four bullet points. It front-loads the purpose and each bullet adds distinct, necessary information. No redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description covers key behaviors and usage distinctions. The presence of an output schema relieves the need to describe return values. However, it could briefly mention the output contains scan run details, but not required.

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 the parameters are already well-described. The description adds minimal new meaning (e.g., noting 'incremental strategy' aligns with strategy param, but does not elaborate on values or usage beyond what the schema provides). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it runs 'incremental or full ecosystem scan' via the scanner service, establishing a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ecosystem_scan by listing four behavioral differences, making the tool's unique purpose evident.

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 contrasts this tool with ecosystem_scan via bullet points, which implicitly guides when to use it: when incremental scanning, filters, archiving, or audit logging are needed. However, it does not provide explicit examples of when not to use it or mention other alternatives beyond the sibling.

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