scan_code_symbols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose and deprecation, without disclosing behavioral details like return values, side effects, or permissions. The term 'scan' implies a read operation, but no explicit safety or behavior assurances are provided.

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 with two sentences: the first stating deprecation and the second stating the purpose. No wasted words, and the deprecation info 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?

The tool is simple with two fully described parameters, but the description lacks details about the output format or what constitutes 'suspicious' Unicode symbols. Since there is no output schema and the tool is deprecated, the completeness is adequate but could be improved for non-deprecated use.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (text and source_name), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it scans for suspicious Unicode symbols in source code and explicitly notes it is a deprecated alias for scan_unicode_security, providing a specific verb+resource and differentiation from siblings.

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 explicitly states that the tool is deprecated and names scan_unicode_security as the alternative, giving clear guidance to avoid using this tool and use the canonical tool instead.

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