scan_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that it uses specific engines and skips missing ones, but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or result format. Some context is given but not comprehensive.

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 that front-load the purpose and include key behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description does not explain the return value format, which is missing an output schema. For a SAST tool, knowing what the output contains (e.g., list of findings) is important. While the engine details are useful, completeness is moderate.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (path and severity_threshold). The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Static analysis (SAST) for code vulnerabilities and unsafe patterns,' specifying the verb (scan) and resource (code). It distinguishes from siblings like scan_dependencies or scan_secrets by focusing on code vulnerabilities.

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 mentions using semgrep and bandit when installed and skipping missing engines, implying fallback behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like scan_all or scan_iac, leaving usage context vague.

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