vyntryx_scan_source_upload

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the description is not carrying the safety burden alone. It still adds real value by spelling out exactly what is stripped from the package (secrets, .gitignore'd files, .git, dependencies, build output), which an agent could not infer from the annotations and which materially affects what gets scanned. It omits that repeated calls create separate scan sessions (idempotentHint=false) and any size/time limits.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the action and the exclusion semantics front-loaded and the return value last. Every clause carries 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?

The output schema means return values need no further explanation, and the core action is well covered. But for a tool that uploads local code off-machine and kicks off a scan, the description says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the uploaded package is retained, or how the exclusion parameter composes with defaults.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gestures at exclusion behavior, but never explains whether the `exclude` array is additive to the built-in defaults or replaces them, and the `name` parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving the agent to guess at its effect.

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 uses three specific verbs (package, upload, start scan) against a clearly scoped resource: a local project folder. The word 'local' implicitly separates it from vyntryx_scan_source_git, and the scan types (SAST/SCA/secrets) plus the return value (scan session id) are stated outright.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'local project folder' suggests this is the path-based alternative to the git-based sibling, but neither the sibling nor the either/or condition is named. There is no mention of prerequisites such as an authenticated session (vyntryx_login_status) or of what to do when the source lives in a remote repo.

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