scan_violations

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

Without annotations, the description only says 'heuristic scan', implying non-exhaustive and read-only behavior, but lacks explicit details on side effects, permissions, or error handling.

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 sentence that is not verbose, but it omits critical information. It is concise in length but not in content, earning a middle score.

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 3 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide enough context for correct invocation or interpretation of results.

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 0% and the description provides no information about parameters (filePath, source, workspaceRoot). The agent must guess their meaning and usage.

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 indicates the tool scans Java/Kotlin source code for Spring anti-patterns, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like detect_spring_context or review_pr_diff, though 'heuristic' is slightly vague.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor prerequisites or conditions for use. The agent is left to infer context from the tool name alone.

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