scan_code_for_missing_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it only states that the tool scans for missing keys. It does not mention whether the scan is read-only, whether it modifies any files, or what the output/return value looks like. No side effects or limitations 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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the basic purpose, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool actually does beyond scanning. It does not explain what 'missing keys' means, whether results are returned or stored, or how the scanner integration behaves. This is a significant gap for a tool that is part of a larger workflow.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter (sourceCodePaths) by stating it is 'Paths to source code directories to scan'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('code') to convey that the tool detects missing keys, which distinguishes it from siblings like sync_missing_keys or get_missing_keys. However, 'using the scanner integration' is vague and could be clearer about what the integration 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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_missing_keys or sync_missing_keys. The description lacks any context on prerequisites, expected input, or how this fits into a workflow.

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