scan

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: read-only, inspection of processes, launchd, extensions, MDM, certificates, matching against a signature database, and return of grouped results with evidence, capabilities, and plain-language explanations. No contradictions.

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 about 100 words across 6 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy or fluff.

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 scanning for monitoring software and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers input (none), the inspection process, and the output format (grouped findings with evidence and explanations).

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 specifies the verb 'scan', the resource 'this Mac', and the read-only nature, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual processes (explain_process), signatures (list_signatures), overview (overview), or raw data (raw_inventory).

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 states the tool is read-only, implying safe usage. It implicitly indicates when to use (to detect monitoring software) but does not explicitly enumerate when not to use or contrast with alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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