scan_structural_risks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it largely succeeds: it explicitly warns that results are 'suspicious patterns, not confirmed root causes' and explains what 'complete', 'zero_coverage', and 'degraded' mean for drawing a clean-scan conclusion. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but for a read-style scan tool the key caveats are disclosed.

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 three sentences with no filler: it front-loads the action, then gives the heuristic caveat, then the output-interpretation rule. Every sentence earns its place, and the dense coverage_status guidance is necessary rather than redundant.

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 complete schema descriptions, the description provides the key result-handling context via coverage_status and total_risks, even though no output schema exists. It does not describe the full risk report structure, but an agent can correctly invoke the tool and understand the critical status field. Minor output-shape detail is the only real gap.

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%, so the structured data already documents all four parameters. The description adds mild context by tying compile_log to the 'compile file list', but it does not add semantics for simulator, categories, or scan_scope beyond the schema. Given full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a concrete imperative: 'Run a Scope 1 regex-based structural risk scan on RTL/TB source files from the compile file list.' This states a specific verb and resource and clearly distinguishes 'structural risk scan' from the many log-parsing, waveform, and TB-navigation siblings. The heuristic qualifier further sharpens what the tool does.

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 sentence states when to choose this tool over a sibling or when not to use it. The coverage_status advice explains how to interpret results after running the scan, not how to select among alternatives. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and 'risk scan' language.

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