scan_code_quality

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

Lists many specific checks but does not disclose error behaviors, supported languages beyond Python and JS/TS, or limitations. No annotations to supplement, so description carries partial burden.

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?

Concise two paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose, list of checks efficiently formatted. Slight redundancy but overall clean.

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 an output schema exists (not shown), description covers core purpose and parameters fairly well. Could mention supported languages beyond two, but sufficient for basic use.

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 path parameter is not described in the schema (0% coverage). The description only implies it's the codebase path, lacking details on file/directory expectation or format.

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 it scans for code quality and style issues, listing specific checks. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_secrets or scan_dependencies by focusing on style and readability.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when asked to check code quality, readability, or style.' Provides clear context, though does not mention when not to use.

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