scan_repo_root

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses behavior: it checks top-level for shadowed executables and whole-tree for external symlinks, with severity levels. It does not mention non-destructive nature or auth needs, but these are implied by scanning.

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 well-structured, starting with the purpose and then detailing two distinct checks with rationale. It is relatively long but every sentence adds value, explaining the threat model and severity. Minor trimming possible but justified by complexity.

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 complexity of two scanning operations, no annotations, and an output schema present (so return values don't need explanation), the description is complete. It covers what is checked, why, severity, and the security patterns involved. No gaps are apparent.

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 a single required 'path' parameter, but the description provides no explicit definition or example of what the path should represent. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only implies the path via context. This is insufficient for unambiguous 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 checks a repo's top-level directory for shadowed developer command names and the whole tree for external symlinks. This is specific, actionable, and distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on IOCs and text manipulation.

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 advises running this tool 'before opening a freshly cloned or downloaded repository in an agentic coding tool,' and explains the security rationale. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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