scan_uncited

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one valuable trait: results are heuristics and the host must judge each candidate (i.e., expect false positives, not verdicts). It does not address read-only safety, scope (whole project vs. a file), or the shape of what is returned.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples, with the heuristic caveat reserved for the end. No filler, though the phrasing is slightly terse for the amount of schema burden it must carry.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and the candidate/heuristic caveat but omits any explanation of the file vs. project scope and the limit behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not: neither 'file' (optional, default null) nor 'limit' (default 30, max 100) is mentioned at all. The agent gets no hint that 'file' scopes the scan or that 'limit' caps candidates.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (sentences without citations that look like factual claims), with concrete examples of the patterns it matches (numbers, comparisons, 'studies show' wording, EN/PT). This is clearly distinguishable from verification-oriented siblings like verify_quote or check_bibliography, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: it surfaces candidates for later judgment, which fits as a pre-screening step before tools like verify_quote or find_evidence. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus those siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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