scan_emoji

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe any side effects, permissions, or handling of binary files. The scanning nature is implied but not explicitly declared as non-destructive.

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 action, and contains no redundant or unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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?

The description lacks information about the tool's output format, which is critical since there is no output schema. It does not explain how the tool returns results (e.g., list of files, count) or handle edge cases. The behavioral transparency gap further reduces completeness.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain the 'recursive' parameter (which lacks a schema description) or give examples of valid inputs.

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 explicitly states 'Scan code files for emoji characters', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools, none of which target emoji scanning. The added phrase 'Useful for finding accidental emojis in source code' reinforces the purpose.

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 when to use ('Useful for finding accidental emojis'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools do not overlap, so no exclusion needed, but the guidance is minimal.

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