scan_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool may append a self-levelling CONNECTIVITY note about dead/orphan/drift code, and that budget controls depth. It does not mention error handling or resource usage, but for a scan tool, these are sufficient.

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 dense paragraph with multiple instructions. While front-loaded with purpose, it could be more structured with bullet points or clearer separation of usage vs. behavior. Every sentence adds value, but the delivery is somewhat cramped.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers core behavior and key parameters but leaves many details unexplained. It is adequate for a tool meant to be used in a sequence, but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to budget and focus (e.g., 'budget=1500' and 'focus=name'), but does not explain other parameters like mode, delta, condense, output_format, or show_* flags. This leaves many parameters ambiguous.

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 what the tool does: scan any file type and produce structured output with condensed code skeletons. It distinguishes itself from 'Read' by being for exploration first, and mentions a special connectivity note feature. The purpose is specific and well-articulated.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: use before reading, budget recommendations (1500 vs 300), and how to use the focus parameter for targeted reading. However, it does not explicitly compare with all sibling tools like scan_diff or scan_directory, missing some differentiation.

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