renforge_scan_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the default summary-only behavior, the opt-in nature of sections, and pagination support, which are useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, safe, or has side effects, nor does it clarify what 'sections' entail. This partial disclosure gives some context but leaves gaps for a tool that has no annotation safety indicators.

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, terse sentence that front-loads the purpose and then packs in key behavioral details. Every word earns its place—there is no fluff or repetition. This is an example of efficient, well-structured writing.

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 has six parameters, no annotations, and sits among a large family of sibling tools, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'sections' are, what a typical summary includes, or how `symbol` and `file_glob` affect the scan. While an output schema exists, the description still needs enough context to guide selection and invocation, which is lacking here.

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. It adds meaning for `sections` (opt-in) and `limit`/`offset` (pagination), but it leaves `project_path`, `symbol`, and `file_glob` unexplained. This partial coverage is not enough for a tool with six parameters; a more thorough description should at least hint at the role of `symbol` and `file_glob`.

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 states a clear action ('Scan scripts') and a specific resource ('scripts'), which is a verb+resource pattern. It also notes key behaviors (summary-only default, opt-in sections, pagination), which adds clarity. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like `renforge_inspect_project` or `renforge_find_references`, so it misses the opportunity to differentiate within the tool family.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description purely states what the tool does without mentioning typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not say 'use this when you need a summary of scripts' or 'for other analysis, see X', so it fails to aid selection.

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