merovingian_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is safe to re-run and updates endpoints without deleting contract history, indicating idempotency and non-destructiveness. However, it does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or error behavior when the prerequisite is not met, leaving some gaps.

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 (three sentences plus an Args block) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, idempotency, parameter explanation. No wasted words.

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 tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential points: purpose, prerequisite, safety, and parameter semantics. It does not detail the output format (unnecessary due to output schema) or error conditions, but the overall completeness is high for a simple tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter as 'Repository name (as registered with merovingian_register)', adding crucial context that the name must match a previously registered repository. This is sufficient for a single parameter.

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 action ('Scan a registered repository') and the outcome ('ingest its API contracts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the prerequisite (after merovingian_register), which implies a unique step in the workflow.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Must be called after merovingian_register before contracts are visible.' It also notes that it is safe to re-run, providing idempotency guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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