Re-scan and diff against a prior scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'Never writes to your code or repo' and explaining the output includes resolved, remaining, and new findings, enhancing transparency beyond 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every 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?

The description explains the core function and output categories. With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, it does not mention optional filtering parameters (scanners, severity_threshold), which could help agents understand customization options.

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 40%, leaving 3 of 5 parameters (scanners, max_findings, severity_threshold) undocumented in the schema. The description does not provide additional details for these parameters, failing to compensate for the gaps.

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 re-runs a scan and diffs against a prior scan, reporting resolved, remaining, and new findings. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'codeinspectus_scan' by focusing on re-scanning after fixes.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to verify fixes' and 'Never writes to your code or repo', providing clear context for safe use. It implicitly contrasts with initial scanning but does not explicitly exhaust alternatives or when not to use.

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