scan_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape ('Structured scan report with discovered items, sizes, categories, and secret warnings'), and the word 'scan' implies read-only behavior. However, it never explicitly states that it does not modify or clean the workspace, nor does it disclose permission needs or runtime implications.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses clear Args/Returns sections. Every line adds useful information, and the artifact_types list is necessary because the schema lacks enums. Nothing is wasted.

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 covers the tool's purpose, all parameters, defaults, allowed filter values, and return report, so an agent can invoke it correctly. It is slightly incomplete only in not providing sibling routing or an explicit read-only guarantee, but for a pure-scan tool with an output schema this is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It documents all four parameters with defaults and adds meaning absent from the schema, especially the allowed artifact_types list ('node_modules', 'python_venv', 'python_cache', 'build_artifact', 'temp_logs', 'env_secret'). This gives the agent everything needed to construct valid arguments.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Scan a developer workspace') and enumerates concrete target categories: build files, virtualenvs, caches, and secret files. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like audit_workspace_secrets or clean_workspace, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction but is still clear.

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 main sentence implies when to use it: when you need a scan report of reclaimable artifacts in a workspace. However, it never tells the agent when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives such as audit_workspace_secrets, preview_cleanup, or clean_workspace. This leaves routing decisions to inference.

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