scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that findings are review leads, not verdicts, and must be validated against current code. It also explains that suppressions are tallied with reasons and never silent, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or performance characteristics, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core action, lists engines, explains the two modes, and ends with profile behavior. Every sentence adds value, and it is concise without being terse. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple engines, two modes, profile handling) and the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential context. It explains the change-set scope, the profile mechanism, and the nature of findings. It could mention what the normalized findings look like or how to interpret them, but the description already states they are review leads, which is sufficient for an agent to proceed.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds context about the base mode (scans base...HEAD changed files, secrets over base..HEAD commits) and the profilePath override, which enriches the schema. However, since the schema is already thorough, the description's added value is moderate, so a baseline 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 the tool runs multiple static-analysis engines over a change set and returns normalized findings. It specifies the engines (semgrep, gitleaks, shellcheck, ruff, actionlint) and the two modes (base ref or explicit files), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ast_search or context.

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 explains when to use the tool (scanning a change set) and provides two usage modes with clear instructions: give either a base git ref or an explicit files list. It also mentions the optional profilePath and how profiles scope engines, giving the agent actionable guidance on invocation.

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