scan_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses that the scan is non-blocking and supports start/refresh/poll operations, but it does not explain side effects, required permissions, or how results are returned. The provided detail is helpful but incomplete.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the automatic-startup note adds useful context without unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description should clarify return values or response handling. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what the poll operation returns or how to interpret results. However, the non-blocking nature and startup behavior give some orientation.

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 only 33% (only 'format' has a description). The tool description does not explain workspacePath or forceRefresh semantics at all, nor does it mention them. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 uses specific verbs ('Start, refresh, or poll') and names the exact resource ('non-blocking Maven dependency scan'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_jar or search_class, which all target different artifacts.

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 explains that startup automatically invokes this for highest-level pom.xml files, implying normal usage context. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the primary use case.

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