anjian_scan_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. '脱敏' (desensitized/redacted) discloses that results are sanitized, and '并入统一报告' indicates integration into a unified report, but it doesn't disclose the actual scanning behavior, potential for external tool calls, whether the scan is synchronous, what happens to files, or any side effects. The description is too terse for a tool with no annotation support.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. All three clauses ('扫描', '结果脱敏', '并入统一报告') serve a purpose. It's under-specified rather than verbose; no padding or redundancy exists.

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 3-parameter scan tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely under-specified. It lacks parameter semantics, return behavior, prerequisite conditions, error handling, and behavioral context around the external tools flag and report integration. The tool is clearly more complex than this one-line description can convey.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It provides zero parameter-level guidance: source_path format, assessment_id purpose/where to get it, and use_external_tools (a boolean with a default) are all undocumented. The agent has no way to know how to construct or validate the source_path or how the external tools flag affects behavior.

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 states the verb '扫描' (scan) and resource '本地源码目录' (local source directory), so the purpose is clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like anjian_run_assessment, anjian_import_web_evidence, or anjian_import_pcap, which all feed into the unified assessment pipeline. The phrase '结果脱敏并并入统一报告' hints at output processing but doesn't clarify what distinguishes this from other scanning/import 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 word '用户明确提供' (explicitly provided by user) implies a precondition for when to use this tool versus other import mechanisms, but this is implied rather than explicit. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given, despite there being 13 sibling tools with overlapping assessment/import functionality.

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