Scan a repository

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint, so 'offline and read-only' is largely redundant. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond them: deterministic execution, file:line evidence for every finding, and verification against the actual files.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The closing 'Offline and read-only' sentence partly restates what the annotations already provide, which is the only slack.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-value burden. It does say findings cite file:line and are verified, but never explains the result shape, ordering, truncation relative to max_findings, or what 'verified' concretely means. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 4-param tool.

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 25% (only 'path' is documented), so the description must compensate. It partially does by enumerating the four lens values that map to the undocumented 'lenses' parameter, but max_findings and min_severity/severity semantics remain undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('multi-lens scan ... of a local directory') with the four lenses enumerated, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the siblings omniseek_verify_citations and omniseek_render_dossier, even though 'comes back verified' hints at overlap with the former.

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 scoping hints ('local directory', 'offline') imply when this is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no routing to omniseek_verify_citations or omniseek_render_dossier even though they sound adjacent. Usage is left largely to inference.

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