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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds a useful piece of behavioral context by stating the output is a 'compact summary', but it does not clarify whether scanning is read-only, whether it traverses the filesystem, or what form the summary takes. This is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action, specifies the target, and lists the scope. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description reasonably covers the main deliverables and the optional focus areas. It does not describe the summary's exact format or nesting, but the tool is simple enough that the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the enum values for 'focus'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It introduces the high-level output categories but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or relationships.

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 verb 'Scan' with a specific resource ('Next.js project') and explicitly enumerates the output areas: routes, API endpoints, schema, and security issues. It is specific and self-contained, and there are no sibling tools requiring differentiation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: analyzing a Next.js project and getting a summary of key areas. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the absence of siblings reduces the need for exclusions. The optional 'focus' parameter also implicitly guides selective usage.

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