scan_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states 'Runs entirely on this machine -- no network calls, nothing uploaded,' providing a privacy guarantee, and clarifies the scope of files read. It also briefly describes the output, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds scope, output, privacy note, and an Args section for the parameter. It is concise and every sentence contributes value.

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?

The tool takes one simple parameter, and an output schema is present, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers what the tool does, what it reads, privacy, and input format. Together with the output schema, this is fully sufficient.

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 schema for `path` has only a title with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates with 'Directory to scan (e.g. a checked-out repository),' adding both meaning and an example. For a single parameter, this is 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 explicitly states 'Scan a local directory for cryptography that a quantum computer would break.' This pairs a specific verb ('scan') with a concrete resource ('local directory') and a clear goal, and it differentiates from sibling list_algorithms by describing the full scan output (algorithms, findings, exposure summary).

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?

It gives clear context: scanning a local directory and reading source/config files. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative list_algorithms or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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