Scan repository

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 determinism, output format (JSON facts only), and the scope of extraction, but does not explicitly mention side effects or read-only nature. This provides moderate transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, no redundant phrases. Every sentence contributes meaning.

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 simple single-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of what will be returned, listing the categories of facts. It is sufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior, though exact JSON structure isn't specified.

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 description does not add information about the 'path' parameter beyond the schema's description. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline applies; the description neither clarifies nor contradicts parameter usage.

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's function with specific verbs ('extract facts') and lists the exact resource types covered. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing determinism and 'no interpretation', which differentiates it from map_repo or diagram tools.

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 when a factual inventory of a repository is needed, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternative tools. The 'no interpretation' clause gives a subtle hint but no explicit exclusions.

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