scan_git_diff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the scope (changed files) but does not explain what 'scan' entails (e.g., security scanning, linting), whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, or what output is produced.

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 12-word sentence, highly concise, front-loading the core purpose. No unnecessary words or redundancies.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what scanning does, how results are returned, prerequisites (e.g., git repository needed), and parameter specifics beyond inference.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It indirectly explains 'base', 'head', and 'staged' by mentioning git range and staged changes, but it does not explain 'path' or 'use_ast' (both critical for usage). The required parameter 'path' is not clarified.

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 scans only files changed in a git range or staged changes. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scan_repository' by focusing on diff rather than whole repository.

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 when to use the tool (for changed files in a PR/diff or staged changes) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools. There is no exclusion guidance.

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