scan_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'performs comprehensive security scan' implies a read-only analysis operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, has side effects (e.g., generating logs), involves rate limits, or what the output format might be. The description is too minimal for a tool with security implications.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 security scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive' means, what security aspects are scanned, what the typical output contains, or how this differs from sibling tools. Given the complexity of security operations, more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when structured data does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('performs comprehensive security scan') and target ('on project directory'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'check_compliance' or 'pentest_application', which might also involve security assessments.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_compliance' or 'pentest_application'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage differentiation.

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