gitchanger_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the exact locations read, which is meaningful. It does not state that the operation is read-only/non-destructive, whether private key material is read or exposed, or what the scan produces, leaving real gaps for a filesystem-touching tool.

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 tight sentence with the resources front-loaded and no filler. It could be slightly stronger by leading with the action's purpose rather than only listing paths, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should say something about what a scan returns or what the agent should do with it. It names the inputs well but leaves the result shape and safety profile for the agent to discover.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the tool runs without any user-supplied scope.

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 gives a specific verb ("Scan") plus three concrete resources it inspects: the ~/.ssh directory, SSH config, and MCP client configurations. That is far more informative than the bare name 'gitchanger_scan', though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like gitchanger_status or gitchanger_mcp_status that could plausibly surface overlapping information.

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 guidance on when to run this versus gitchanger_list, gitchanger_status, or gitchanger_mcp_get. Use is only implied by the word 'scan', and with fourteen sibling tools in the namespace an agent gets no routing signal here.

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