vyntryx_scan_source_git

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the token is sent once and never stored or shown, and a scan is started as a side effect. It does not say whether the scan is async or how progress is tracked.

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?

Two tight sentences: the primary action first, then the conditional private-repo guidance. Every clause carries information an agent needs (ref semantics, token_env format, storage guarantee).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The remaining gap is lifecycle context: that a scan is started asynchronously and that vyntryx_scan_status is the way to follow it, plus that `url` must be an https git URL.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it explains both non-obvious params: `ref` as branch/tag/commit and `token_env` as the NAME of an env var with the required VYNTRYX_GIT_TOKEN prefix. Only `url` is left implicit (https git URL), which is a minor gap against a full compensation.

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+resource ('clone a git repository over https ... and start a SAST/SCA/secrets scan'), which clearly separates it from the upload-based sibling and the login/status tools. It stops short of naming the alternative explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a concrete usage condition for private repos ('pass token_env'), which is more than most definitions offer. It never states when to prefer this over vyntryx_scan_source_upload (local files/archives) or what the https-only constraint excludes.

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