preflight_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it reads specific files, compares code against declarations, and notes that scan_date affects verdicts. It doesn't mention performance or side effects, but transparency is good overall for a scan tool.

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 reasonably concise with a brief intro and structured Args section. It could be slightly more terse, but all sentences add value. The structure is clear and front-loaded with purpose.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and presence of output schema, the description covers the main behaviors and parameters. It does not explain return values (but output schema exists), and lacks details on output format. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a scanning tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. Each parameter is explained with additional context: e.g., 'scan_date' can be a future date to preview deadlines, 'store' is 'apple'/'play'/'', 'severity' as min level. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 scans a mobile app repo for rejections before submission, specifying files read (Info.plist, etc.) and what it reports. It distinctively covers comprehensive scanning, differentiating from siblings like 'check_api_declaration' or 'explain_rejection'.

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 use before submission but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison with siblings. Usage context is implied through 'before submission' but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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