scan_full

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly implies a non-destructive scanning operation. The description adds context about output format (JSON + HTML), ranking criteria (EPSS, CISA KEV), and surfaced areas, but does not detail side effects or required permissions beyond what annotations imply.

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 numbered points and a comparison. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrasing like 'these are a growing attack vector' which adds color but not essential instruction.

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 the tool (4 parameters, multiple surfaces), the description covers the scanning scope and output format adequately. It lacks parameter details and does not leverage the output schema (though not shown). The comparison with scan_project adds completeness. However, the missing parameter explanations reduce usability.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. However, it only mentions project_path implicitly via the surfaces and output_dir in reports. It does not explain the purpose of output_dir, run_profile, or max_findings, leaving the agent unsure how to set them correctly.

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 tool performs a comprehensive scan covering project dependencies, OS packages, and IDE extensions. It explicitly distinguishes from scan_project by noting that scan_full covers three surfaces that project-only scanners cannot reach.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., 'complete coverage', 'full audit') and when to use scan_project instead ('fast project-only checks'). Includes specific user request patterns and a warning about slower speed.

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