Scan All Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it auto-detects language and framework and supports filtering, which are useful traits beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by capability and examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples are practical and helpful.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explicitly state what the scan returns (e.g., a status report, dependency list, or vulnerabilities). The examples imply 'status', but the response format remains unclear, which is a gap for an agent.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description reinforces filtering by language/framework but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the default behavior of the 'directory' parameter.

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: 'Scan all projects in your workspace' with specific verb and resource. It also mentions auto-detection of language/framework and filtering, distinguishing it from siblings like depsonar_check or depsonar_audit.

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 gives clear context for use (scanning all projects or filtering by language/framework) and provides example prompts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to the many sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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