scan_diptrace_documents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explain what 'allowed directory' means, how recursion works, whether root is required, or any permission constraints. The description lacks details on return behavior or side effects, leaving the agent to guess.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It clearly communicates the core action and object. However, it could be slightly improved by incorporating parameter hints or usage context without becoming verbose.

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 two optional parameters and no annotations, the description is underspecified. It does not explain default behaviors, how the 'allowed directory' is determined, or what happens when recursion is disabled. Even though an output schema exists, the description should still provide enough context for agent invocation.

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, and the description does not mention the 'root' or 'recursive' parameters at all. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving parameter semantics entirely to the agent's interpretation of parameter names and defaults.

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's function: find DipTrace XML/native-XML documents within an allowed directory. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling scanning tools like scan_component_libraries and scan_pattern_libraries, which target libraries rather than documents.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools that might be more appropriate for other scanning tasks. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing its usage.

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