scan_path

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

Detailed behavioral disclosure: traverses locally, skips build/vendor dirs, ignores binaries, no external API calls for source code. Mentions findings include why_it_matters and safe_fix. No annotations provided, so description fully compensates.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points, but somewhat lengthy. Could be more concise without losing key 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?

Given no annotations, description covers behavioral traits, workflow (use render_report), and constraints. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Comprehensive for a scanning 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description only implicitly covers 'path'. It does not explain 'scenario', 'profile', or 'max_files' parameters, leaving gaps in meaning beyond schema.

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 files/folders for security compliance, using specific verb '점검' and resource 'path'. It distinguishes from sibling 'scan_code' by specifying local paths vs in-memory code.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (local path security check) and when not (use scan_code for code snippets). It also positions the tool as entry point for 'existing codebase audit' flow.

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