scan_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: static SAFE/CLEAN findings, deep mode verifying RUNS and HONEST in a Docker sandbox, and the threshold interpretation. It does not mention permissions or error cases, but it offers substantial behavioral context beyond a simple definition.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and enriched with usage context. Every sentence earns its place; no filler 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 the tool's complexity (deep mode, Docker sandbox, scoring threshold) and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and when to use it. It could elaborate on the meaning of SAFE/CLEAN/RUNS/HONEST, but those are likely domain terms. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful detail for 'deep' (Docker sandbox, slower, needs Docker) beyond the schema's simple description. It also clarifies that 'path' is required despite the schema's empty required array, which is valuable semantic information.

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 scans a repository and returns a full Umbra Trust Score report as JSON, with a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('repository'). It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_score, guard_content) by focusing on the scanning action and producing a complete report.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call before declaring a task done — a score below 50 means the work is not done.' This gives a clear conditional trigger for when to use the tool, which effectively differentiates it from alternatives in the workflow.

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