Re-scan and diff against a prior scan

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

Adds 'Never writes to your code or repo,' which complements annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) with a non-write guarantee. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: action, diff behavior, and non-write guarantee. Front-loaded with main purpose.

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?

Adequate for a non-destructive tool with annotations covering safety, but gaps in parameter semantics make it incomplete.

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 only 40%. The description adds context for prior_scan_id (default behavior) but does not describe other parameters like scanners, max_findings, or severity_threshold, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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, diffs against a prior scan, and reports resolved/remaining/new findings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like codeinspectus_scan by specifying the diff and verification aspect.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to verify fixes,' providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough.

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