scan_staged

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries burden. It discloses automatic reading of staged files but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any auth requirements, or behavior when no staged files exist.

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?

Three sentences, each valuable: purpose, usage advice, input clarification. Front-loaded with core action. No redundancy or filler.

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 and single optional parameter, description adequately covers what the tool does and when to use it. Could mention return structure, but functional completeness is high for this simple tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'No input needed' reinforcing optionality, but mostly restates schema info. Minimal added value beyond schema.

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 action (scan) and resource (git-staged files) with a specific purpose (security vulnerabilities). It distinguishes from siblings like scan_file or scan_changed_files by focusing on staged files.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Run this before every commit' and notes 'No input needed', providing clear usage context. However, lacks alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, but the instruction is strong enough.

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