soul_scan

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the analysis scope (53 safety patterns), output format (grade A+ to F), and that it provides actionable recommendations. This enhances transparency about what the tool does and returns, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication details beyond the optional API key.

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 front-loaded and concise with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, scope, and output. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and target, the second details the analysis and results. No wasted words 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?

Given the tool's complexity (safety analysis with multiple patterns), rich annotations (readOnlyHint), and high schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the analysis process and output format well. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., JSON format of recommendations), but the mention of 'actionable recommendations' partially compensates.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it implies the files parameter is for Soul Spec files and mentions the API key is for premium rules, but this is redundant with schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Run', 'Analyzes') and resources ('SoulScan safety verification on Soul Spec files'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on safety analysis rather than memory operations or other soul-related functions like installation or rollback.

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 context (analyzing persona files for safety) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'premium rules' with an optional API key, suggesting a use case for enhanced analysis, but lacks clear guidance on when to choose this over other soul-related tools like soul_search or soul_get.

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