kaeris_scan_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is 'Purely local — reads the filesystem, makes no API call,' and explains that it 'Skips node_modules, .git, build/dist output and other noise; bounded so it's safe on large repos.' It also clarifies that outputs are 'best guess' or null when ambiguous, providing a clear behavioral model.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, usage guidance, supported frameworks, and a return schema. Each section earns its place; no redundant text. Despite its length, it remains focused and informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (supporting many frameworks and scanning a repo), the description covers purpose, use cases, safety, parameters, and return values in detail. The absence of an output schema is compensated by an explicit return JSON structure with field explanations.

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?

The only parameter, 'path', is described as 'directory to scan (default: current directory).' This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema, which lacks any description. For a single simple parameter, this is fully sufficient.

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's purpose: 'Discover a repo's i18n setup' and lists the exact outputs (locale files, base language, target languages, framework). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the initial discovery step, explicitly naming tools like kaeris_status and kaeris_add_language as subsequent steps.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this FIRST when asked to "look at/audit/fix this repo's i18n" and you don't already know the source file.' It also provides an exclusion condition and points to specific alternative tools, giving strong guidance for tool selection.

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