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 explicitly discloses the read-only nature, that it does not build/run/modify the workspace, and the limits of its analysis scope. This gives the agent a complete safety and behavior picture.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then a clear delimitation of non-goals. No filler words or redundancy.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, scope, safety, and limitations. It is complete for a read-only scan tool in the context of its siblings.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool operates on (workspace, packages, package.xml), but there are no parameter semantics to clarify further.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') with a clear resource ('configured ROS 2 workspace') and scope ('packages and basic package.xml metadata'). It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly listing what it does not do (dependency, launch, interface, robot-description analysis).

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?

Provides clear exclusions ('does not perform full dependency, launch, interface, or robot-description analysis') which imply when to use alternative sibling tools. It also states 'read-only' as a usage context. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools, so slightly shy of a 5.

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