project_scan_zombies

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals key behaviors: 'Never auto-closes — returns proposals only' and explains the scanning methodology (cross-referencing code, commits, and titles). This fully informs the agent of the tool's read-only nature and output type.

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: the first captures the purpose, the second adds methodology and a behavioral constraint. No unnecessary words, efficient and front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description explains the return type ('proposals') and the non-auto-close behavior. It does not detail the proposal format or error scenarios, but for a scan tool the core information is present. Sibling diversity is clear.

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 description coverage is 100% and the description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 for 'zombie issues (implemented but still Open)' and explains it cross-references code, commits, and issue titles. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like project_scan_todos.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., project_scan_todos). The description assumes the agent knows to use it for zombie issues but does not provide when-not or which sibling to use instead.

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