scanner_run

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description's 'Scan codebase' strongly implies a read-only analysis operation. This contradiction is not resolved by any side-effect disclosure (e.g., outfile writes), so the behavioral profile is misleading.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded, no filler. It tells the core action and one default in minimal size.

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?

For a complex scanner with many nested configuration options and no output schema, the description omits when to use it versus siblings like run_code_analyzer or scanner_run_dfa, and gives no sense of output or side effects. The annotations alone are not enough to make this complete.

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?

Context reports schema description coverage is 0% for the single input object, so the description must compensate. It adds only 'Defaults to all rules if none specified,' leaving the numerous nested engines, formats, and config parameters unexplained.

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 verb 'Scan' and resource 'codebase' are specific, and 'security and quality rules' clarifies the domain. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling scanners such as scanner_run_dfa or run_code_analyzer.

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 only states a parameter default ('all rules if none specified'). It gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over sibling tools, and no exclusions.

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