scan_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool runs scanners on a directory, implying read-only analysis, but does not disclose whether it modifies files, requires permissions, returns results, or what happens with outputs. The severity_threshold parameter's effect on behavior is not described. Score 2 for minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core action (run SAST scanners). No wasted words. However, it is too brief for the complexity of the tool. Score 4 for conciseness but could include more structure.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, how the severity_threshold affects results, and what the tool does with findings. Score 2 as it misses key context needed for tool selection and invocation.

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 0%. The description does not explain the parameters 'path' or 'severity_threshold'. Although the schema defines an enum for severity_threshold, the description adds no meaning. The mention of semgrep and bandit does not link to parameters. Score 1 for complete lack of parameter semantics.

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 SAST scanners (semgrep, bandit) on a directory. The verb 'Run' and resource 'SAST scanners' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_secrets or scan_dependencies by naming the scanners, but does not explicitly differentiate from scan_all, which might also run SAST. Score 4 because it's clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling tools are listed but not compared. No mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or trade-offs. Score 2 as it provides no usage context.

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