scan_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: results are 'locations only', so secret values are not returned. It says nothing about required permissions, whether the scan is read-only, runtime cost, or repo configuration assumptions.

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?

A single tight sentence with the target class front-loaded and the important output caveat attached inline. Every clause earns its place and there is no padding.

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?

An output schema exists and the tool has no parameters, so return-value and argument explanation are not needed. The main remaining gap is behavioral context (permissions, read-only nature, which repo is 'configured'), which is thin but not fatal for a no-arg scan.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb (Scan) and resource (the configured repo) plus the exact target class (exposed service-role keys / JWT secrets). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like run_audit_query and probe_as_anon, but never names an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only inferred.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus run_audit_query, probe_as_anon, or get_schema. The parenthetical '(locations only)' scopes the output but does not tell an agent when the tool is appropriate or what prerequisites must hold.

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