scan_repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the basic action and outcome (pass/warn/fail per artifact) but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, error handling, or whether the tool is read-only. This leaves some behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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 a single succinct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and what it covers. No unnecessary words or 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?

The description covers the main purpose and the artifacts checked, which is sufficient given the tool's simplicity. However, it does not elaborate on the output format or define pass/warn/fail criteria, which could be beneficial.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already adequately describes the single parameter (path). The tool description does not add meaningful new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 scans a local repository for specific AI Act documentation artifacts and reports pass/warn/fail. It correctly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_obligations, classify_risk, and next_deadlines by focusing on scanning an existing repo.

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 implies usage when checking AI Act documentation compliance but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct comparisons to alternatives. However, the context from sibling tools makes the appropriate use case clear.

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