scan_project

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

The annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by explaining that dependency lookups happen by default, that offline mode skips network access and registry/vulnerability lookups, and that the scan returns a launch-readiness score.

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 somewhat long because of the comprehensive vulnerability list, but that list earns its place by defining the tool's exact scope. The structure is clear: action, detection scope, then parameter documentation. It is front-loaded and not padded.

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 complex scanner with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input parameters, defaults, network behavior, scope, and high-level return value. The annotations cover the read-only and non-destructive profile, so the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It explains each parameter clearly: path is an absolute project root defaulting to the client workspace root, check_dependencies enables npm/PyPI/OSV.dev lookups, and offline disables network access. This fully compensates for the bare 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?

The description names a specific action ('Scan'), a specific resource ('a web or mobile app project'), and a concrete outcome ('return a launch-readiness score'). It also enumerates a detailed set of checks, which clearly distinguishes this project-wide scanner from siblings like scan_snippet.

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 intended scope is implied by the first sentence and the coverage list, so an agent can infer it is for project-level security review. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus scan_snippet, list_findings, check_dependencies, or generate_report, and it provides no 'when not to use' guidance.

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