scan_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool scans and returns data, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly say it is non-destructive, require any permissions, or explain side effects. The mention of scope (Global and Project) adds useful context, but more could be added.

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 two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and a clear list of returned items. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 parameters, annotations, and output schema, the description provides a reasonable account of what the tool returns and the scopes it covers. However, it could be more complete by stating whether the tool is read-only, if it requires any authentication, or if it has performance implications.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema, which is trivially complete. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional info is required.

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 tool scans all Claude Code configurations across Global and Project scopes, and lists the specific items returned (Skills, Memories, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource with enough detail to distinguish from siblings like delete_item or audit_security.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Siblings are listed externally but not referenced.

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