postrc_scan

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and readOnlyHint, but the description adds critical behavioral details: 'LONG-RUNNING: involves LLM analysis', generation of a 'REMEDIATION-TASKS file' on critical findings, and return format 'findings by severity (critical/high/medium/low) with CWE/legal references.' This goes beyond the structured metadata and informs the agent of side effects and latency.

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 dense but well-organized: it starts with the main purpose, then lists return format, timing, follow-up steps, and side effects. All sentences contribute meaningful information. While it's slightly long, it avoids fluff and is structured with clear separators, making it easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (security scanning, LLM analysis, multiple modules) and lack of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: use case, return format, workflow, configuration, side effects, and duration. It gives the agent enough context to invoke correctly and handle results, though it could mention behavior after success in more detail, but the existing guidance is sufficient.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by instructing the agent to 'Pass code_context with the actual project code', clarifying the intended use of that parameter. It also mentions the optional legal module configuration, which helps understand the modules parameter. However, modules are not fully explained individually, so the gain is moderate.

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's function: 'Scans code for security vulnerabilities, checks monitoring instrumentation, and optionally runs legal compliance review.' The verb 'scans' and the target 'code' make the purpose specific. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning a follow-up with postrc_gate, showing its role in the pipeline.

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 gives explicit timing ('Run AFTER building (Phase 6 Forge complete)'), prerequisites ('Pass code_context with the actual project code'), and workflow ('After success... call postrc_gate'). It also notes the Pro tier requirement and configuration via postrc_configure with legal_enabled=true, providing context for when to use the optional legal modules.

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