Scan text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only and offline' largely repeats structured data. 'Without writing it to disk' adds a concrete clarification about no temp artifacts, but nothing is said about cost, limits, or failure behavior despite the tool producing findings.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope; nothing is buried. The 'Read-only and offline' clause is the one piece that duplicates annotations rather than adding information.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description never says what is being scanned for (the findings/severity model is only implied via sibling terms), nor does it connect to list_rules or explain how results are shaped.

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 the schema already documents content, kind, filename, max_findings and min_severity. The description only restates the kind parameter ('Set kind to say what the content is') and adds no meaning about severity thresholds, findings cap, or filename handling.

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?

States a clear verb and resource ('scans content passed inline') and scopes it with examples of acceptable content plus the contrast 'without writing it to disk', which implicitly separates it from path- and install-based siblings. It never names scan_path/scan_installed explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 inline-vs-disk framing implies when to prefer this over scan_path, and 'Set kind to say what the content is' hints at the selection parameter. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not rule and no mention of alternatives by name.

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