scan_first_principles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists what it analyzes and the exact return metrics with semantics (e.g., 'Dependency Delta (negative = fewer deps = positive)'), but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or auth requirements, though the verb 'Scan' implies non-destructive action.

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 succinct: a one-line summary, a four-item bullet list of analysis criteria, and a five-item bullet list of returns. It front-loads the primary purpose and uses structured bullets without unnecessary prose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description provides both the analysis criteria and the return metrics, giving a complete picture of what the tool does and what to expect. Since an output schema exists, the return values are also structured, but the description alone is sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to re-explain them. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, providing only the general context of scanning contributions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Scan contributions for first-principles thinking patterns,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. The bulleted list details the exact patterns analyzed and the output metrics, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'get_contribution_metrics' and 'analyze_karpathy_alignment'.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to analyze PRs for first-principles thinking, listing the exact signals it looks for. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools for related analyses, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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