scan_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions running scanners and producing a unified deduplicated report, and describes the include_git_history behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files), auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior if scanners are missing, leaving gaps.

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 (34 words), front-loading the main purpose and following with specific advice. Every sentence is meaningful with 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 no output schema, the description should explain return format more fully. It mentions 'one unified, deduplicated report' but lacks details on structure, severity filtering, or error cases. With sibling tools available, not referencing them for comparison reduces completeness. Overall adequate but not thorough.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising when to set include_git_history=true ('recommended before push/PR'), which goes beyond what the schema provides. This improves guidance for the agent.

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 runs every installed scanner (secrets, SAST, dependencies, IaC) and returns one unified deduplicated report. It distinguishes itself from sibling single-scanner tools like scan_secrets or scan_code, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 recommends using include_git_history=true before push/PR, providing clear context for when to enable that parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, limiting guidance on alternatives.

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