repomind_scan_workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the scan is recursive, ignores binary/build folders (node_modules, .git, dist), and provides statistics. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any potential side effects, performance implications, or error conditions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('Recursively scans'), then adds specific details about ignored folders and outputs. Every clause earns its place, with no superfluous information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and output by mentioning file structure mapping, source file listing, and statistics. It could be more specific about the return format (e.g., JSON object), but the current level is sufficient for a straightforward scan.

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 only parameter, basePath, is fully described in the schema ('The absolute path to the workspace root directory to scan'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond repeating that it is the workspace root. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 verb ('Recursively scans'), resource ('workspace directory'), and scope ('mapping its file structure, listing source files, and providing statistics'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it ignores binary/build folders, which is unique among the listed 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?

The description implies usage for scanning a workspace to understand its structure, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like repomind_generate_diagram or repomind_impact_analysis. No exclusions or explicit 'use this when...' guidance is provided.

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