repopilot_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact not in the structured data: 'Runs entirely on disk; nothing is uploaded.' It does not discuss pagination/limit behavior further, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return value before routing guidance. Every sentence is functional, though the sentence count is on the higher side; it is efficient rather than padded.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, and the description still names the report contents. Annotations cover safety, the schema covers all 8 params, and alternatives are routed explicitly, so an agent has everything needed to invoke correctly.

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 scope, base, profile, filters, limit and offset are all fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Audit a repository, folder, or file for findings') and enumerates the domains covered (architecture, coupling, code quality, security, testing) plus the return shape (JSON scan report). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings: it is 'not about one change,' unlike repopilot_review_change.

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 routing rules: use for a health check that is not about a single change; use repopilot_review_change for what a change touched or which checks it weakened; use repopilot_context for a short Markdown brief; use repopilot_explain_finding to explain a result. Both when-to-use and named alternatives with selection conditions are present.

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