scan_repository

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is largely covered structurally. The description still adds genuine value by stating 'never execute target code' and 'local', which tells the agent that no import-time side effects or network fetches occur — a distinction annotations alone do not make. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned inventory or any size/performance limits.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action and output front-loaded and the safety constraint appended. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the no-execution guarantee adequately. What remains missing is the semantics of 'path' (file vs directory, recursion) and any hint about what an 'AST inventory' contains, which matters because there is no output schema to explain the return value.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, so the description carries the burden and only partially meets it. 'Local Python source' implies a filesystem path, but it never says whether path is a file or a directory, whether directories are walked recursively, or what path separators/formats are accepted. Useful but insufficient for a low-coverage 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?

The description names a specific verb pair and resource: 'Read local Python source and return an AST inventory.' An agent can tell this is a static Python-analysis tool. It does not differentiate from the siblings inspect_topology or verify_course, which keeps it from a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only scoping cues are implicit: it works on 'local Python source', so non-Python or remote inputs are out of scope. The 'never execute target code' clause is a safety property, not usage routing.

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