forge_scan

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

The description mentions the tool returns results but does not confirm it is read-only or disclose any side effects, performance characteristics, or authorization needs. With no annotations, the description leaves behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output. There is no extraneous information.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and output adequately but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. Given the complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects), it is minimally viable but could better differentiate from similar siblings.

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 input schema already provides adequate descriptions for both parameters, so the description adds no new parameter-specific information. It does contribute context about the rules and output, but this is tangential to parameter semantics. Schema coverage is 100%, so 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 the tool scans a project for code quality issues using specific governance rules, and lists output elements. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like forge_assess, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 when to use (when code quality scanning is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No comparison with sibling tools is given.

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