scan_all_tools

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It indicates a read-like operation (scanning, returning a summary) but does not disclose if any modifications occur, permission requirements, or rate limits. The absence of destructive hints implies safety but is not explicitly stated.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence conveys the action and output efficiently with no redundant or vague language.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema (context signals indicate presence), the description adequately covers purpose and outcome. However, it lacks context on side effects or prerequisites, which for a scanning tool is minimal but still notable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but the baseline for no parameters is 4, as there is nothing to clarify beyond what the empty schema inherently provides.

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 every registered tool policy for typosquatting and hidden unicode') and the output ('returns a per-tool risk assessment summary'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'scan_tool_definition' which likely scans a single policy, thus providing specific verb+resource+scope.

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?

While the description implies use for a global security scan (vs. checking a single policy via 'scan_tool_definition'), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any prerequisites or exclusions.

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