model_scanner__scan_hf_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: revision resolution to an immutable commit sha, the 256 MB size threshold with first/last 64 MB sampling and why that suffices for headers and pickle streams, and the HF_TOKEN requirement for gated/private repos. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each adds distinct information (pinned commit, sampling limits, auth). Slight cost in that the size-sampling sentence is longer than it needs to be.

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?

Covers fetching, revision pinning, size handling and auth for a three-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations. It never indicates what the scan produces or which checks run, which would help an agent interpret results, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents repo, maxFiles and revision. The description adds one genuinely new semantic — that revision is resolved to a commit sha and all files are read from it — but says nothing about maxFiles' effect on coverage. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Scan every model file in a Hugging Face model repo at a pinned commit." The remote-repo scope implicitly separates it from the sibling scan_file/scan_directory tools that operate on local paths.

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 described scope (a remote HF repo, resolved to a commit sha) makes the use case clear: remote model artifact scanning rather than local file/directory scanning. It never names an alternative sibling or states exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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