scan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'scan a repository' but does not indicate if the operation is read-only, if network access is required, or any side effects. The nature of 'overview' is vague and does not reveal potential limitations or prerequisites.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses two sentences to convey the core function and parameter. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) but remains efficient.

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 has one parameter and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the input but lacks details about the output format or behavioral constraints. It does not explain what happens if the path is invalid or if the repository is large.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the path parameter by specifying it should be an 'absolute path to the repository root directory', which is useful beyond the schema's simple 'string' type.

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 that the tool scans a repository and returns an overview including languages, file structure, entry points, and config files. It specifies verb and resource but does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like full_extraction or deep, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (api_surface, architecture, deep, etc.). No context for when to choose scan over alternatives or when not to use it.

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