scan_codebase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool runs multiple analyzers, implying a comprehensive but potentially heavy operation. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether it modifies files, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise at five sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, listing analyzers and usage context without unnecessary details.

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 complexity of a multi-pass scan and the existence of sibling tools for individual checks, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. It mentions specific analyzers and an external service (OSV.dev), but could add more about output format or performance impacts.

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 input schema has one parameter 'path' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description implies the path is a codebase directory, but it does not explicitly define the parameter's format or constraints, providing only marginal added meaning.

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 runs a full multi-pass security and quality scan, listing all included analyzers (secrets, OWASP, debug statements, code quality, style linting, dependencies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_secrets or scan_code_quality, which are more specific.

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 says 'Use this when asked to review, audit, or scan a codebase for issues', providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or recommend alternative tools for narrower scans.

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