system.scan.full

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly indicates this is an importing action ('imports everything'), implying it may be data-intensive or slow. However, it does not state whether it is destructive (overwrites existing data), whether it requires network access, or how long it might take. The claim 'not just recent' adds useful scope but not operational detail.

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 short, fact-rich sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence provides the core action and resources, the second clarifies the scope. Each sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat sparse for a full-system scan. It lacks information about return values, potential side effects, and prerequisites. However, for a zero-parameter, conceptually simple tool, it covers the essentials of what and scope. A 3 is appropriate as adequate but with gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters to cover). The description adds meaning by explaining what the scan covers (all PRs + Shortcut cards) and the scope ('everything'), which is valuable context since there are no configurable options. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for a no-parameter tool.

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 performs a full scan of all PRs from configured GitHub repos plus Shortcut cards, using the verb 'scan' with specific resources. It distinguishes from an incremental/recent-only scan by saying 'imports everything, not just recent', but does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling tools that also interact with PRs or data import.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must repos be configured first?), expected frequency, or when a partial scan would suffice. Without this, an agent might use it repeatedly in a session unnecessarily.

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