analyze_code_scanning

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: setting trigger_scan=true auto-disovers, triggers, and polls the CodeQL workflow, while the default is to return existing open alerts. It does not address auth permissions, rate limits, or empty-result behavior, but the core side-effect profile is clear.

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?

Three dense sentences with no fluff: purpose, return fields, and trigger behavior are each covered once. The field list is justified because the tool has no output schema.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it returns, how to interpret the results, and how trigger_scan changes behavior. It is slightly incomplete around failure modes, such as what happens if no CodeQL workflow exists or polling times out.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds useful output-field semantics (message_text explains why code is vulnerable) but no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific action ('Get open Code Scanning alerts (CodeQL) for a GitHub repository') with a clear resource and even lists the per-alert fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_ci_status, analyze_dependencies, and get_health_score.

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 by naming CodeQL Code Scanning alerts but never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The trigger_scan guidance is parameter-level behavior, not tool-selection guidance.

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