report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'compact, token-efficient' (performance) and lists content, but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only (likely), requires any authentication, or has side effects. The description lacks key transparency for a safe inference.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Returns a compact summary'), then specifics. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple summarization tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and contents. However, it assumes a 'last scan' exists without mentioning preconditions or how multiple scans are handled, slightly reducing completeness.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters (project_root, top_n). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not exceeding it.

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 tool returns a compact summary of findings from the last scan, listing specific contents like dead code count, complexity hotspots, and actionable next steps. This distinguishes it from siblings like scan_dead_code and scan_complexity, which perform individual scans rather than summarize.

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 implies the tool should be used after a scan has been run ('from the last scan'), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not guidance. With siblings including multiple scanning tools, it could be clearer which scan results are aggregated.

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