aegis_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with the emphatic 'Runs nothing', while adding the material behavioral detail that the analysis is static only. It does not describe cost, runtime, or how findings are surfaced, but for a read-only scanner the safety profile is adequately conveyed and non-contradictory.

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?

Three short sentences: verb+scope first, detection surface second, usage condition last. No filler, and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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 only two optional params, no output schema, and readOnly already annotated, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it and what the scan does and does not do. What is missing is any hint of what the result contains (findings, severity, pass/fail) for an agent that must act on the output.

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% and both parameters are optional with defaults documented, so the schema carries the burden. The description says nothing about the relationship or precedence between 'path' and 'project', which is the one ambiguity the schema leaves open.

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?

A specific verb ('Statically scan') applied to a specific resource (directory/repo/skill/plugin/MCP server), followed by an enumerated list of the exact threat classes it detects. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aegis_run and aegis_probe, which by name imply execution and active probing rather than static inspection.

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 closing sentence 'Use before working in an unfamiliar repo' gives a concrete triggering condition. It does not, however, state when to prefer a sibling (e.g., aegis_probe or aegis_run) or any exclusions, so routing is clear in one direction only.

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