repo_scan_files

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only scanning operation but does not disclose whether it respects .gitignore, recursion behavior, performance implications, or any side effects. The phrase 'classified types' is vague and unexplained.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core function efficiently. It avoids unnecessary details, though it could be more informative without being wordy.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but lacks key details such as what 'aggregate statistics' include, how file types are classified, and whether scanning is recursive. With no output schema, the description would benefit from more specificity about the return value.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'path' parameter clearly described in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but given full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: scanning a local repository and listing files with type/language classifications and statistics. The verb 'scan' and resource 'local repository' are specific. It does not explicitly name siblings to differentiate, but the output focus on 'list all files' distinguishes it from analysis and indexing 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like repo_analyze_repository or repo_index_repository. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context or exclusions.

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