Scan a single code snippet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it operates on an in-memory string, simulates file-based scanning, and is cheaper than a full path scan. It does not describe the return shape, but the read-only, in-memory behavior is clearly conveyed.

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 with no filler: the first states the core behavior, the second gives the intended use case and cost comparison. All information is front-loaded and useful.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only tool with thorough schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and trade-offs versus scan_path. The only minor gap is that it never explicitly says what the scan returns, but the 'scan' semantics and sibling explain_finding make the outcome reasonably inferable.

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%, with detailed descriptions for both path and content, including why path matters for client-side heuristics. The description itself adds little parameter-level meaning beyond 'one in-memory string,' so it meets the baseline but does not exceed what the schema already provides.

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: 'Runs the static engine on one in-memory string as if it were a file.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling scan_path by operating on an in-memory string rather than a filesystem path.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this after generating code, before showing it to the user or committing it.' It also names the alternative (scan_path) and the selection condition ('Cheaper than scan_path when only a diff is at stake'), so an agent knows when to pick this tool.

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