scout

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns ranked candidates, caller counts, usage, impact, and collision notes. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond them, though it could elaborate on output format.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, output, usage guidance, and edge cases. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description partially explains the output: ranked candidates, caller counts, usage, impact, and collision notes. The 4 parameters are well-covered in the schema. It misses specifying the exact structure of the response, but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's value and workflow.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'task' as natural language, but does not significantly expand on other parameters like 'repo', 'top_k', or 'format'. It does not provide syntax details beyond the schema.

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 that the tool provides ranked reuse candidates with caller counts, usage of top call site, and impact of top. It explicitly says to use when locating 'what already does X?' for reuse over reinvention, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'similar' or 'find_implementations'.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: before adding/fixing, when locating existing code. It also advises to then use context/change_kit before editing, and notes that production defs beat sample/test/fixture with collision notes, providing a clear decision process.

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