prufgate_full_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the conditional probe behavior, but omits the traits that most distinguish a 'full scan' — expected runtime, cost, and why it is heavier than the fast variant.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the primary scope comes first and the conditional clause follows. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description says nothing about what a scan returns or how results are surfaced, and it never explains the 'engines 1-5' concept. For a heavy composite scan tool, that leaves real gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description only echoes the target_url condition already stated in the schema, adding no new parameter semantics.

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 action (run engines 1-5 plus the diff reviewer over the whole workspace) and a conditional extra (BOLA probe when target_url is set), which contrasts implicitly with prufgate_fast_scan and prufgate_bola_check. However 'engines 1-5' is unexplained jargon, so an agent cannot tell exactly which checks are bundled.

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 'whole workspace' scope and the target_url conditional give some usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over prufgate_fast_scan, prufgate_bola_check, or prufgate_review. The choice is left to inference from the word 'full'.

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