scan_staged

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses automated staged file reading, diff-aware default behavior, and output format options. Does not mention that it is read-only or requires a git repository, but these are reasonable assumptions for a scanning tool.

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 with zero waste: purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral note. Front-loaded with the essential verb and resource, efficient and scannable.

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?

Covers all essential aspects given the tool's simplicity: what, when, how to customize. Lacks mention of prerequisite git repository or potential error states, but these are minor omissions for a focused scan 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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining format options as 'human-readable' vs 'machine-readable' and clarifying the diff_aware trade-off. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 git-staged files for security vulnerabilities, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_file or scan_directory by targeting only staged files, and explicitly ties its use to the pre-commit workflow.

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 recommends running before every commit, giving clear context. Does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the staged file focus is a natural differentiator. Could mention when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for most scenarios.

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