Scan Codebase

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, already indicating safe read behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output content (language, framework, etc.), which is transparent about what the tool returns. No contradictions.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and output. Every word is necessary, 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?

With two well-described parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool scans and returns. A minor gap is not mentioning that it operates on the current workspace or that it is fast, but overall it's 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?

Both parameters (depth and exclude) have descriptions in the input schema, covering 100%. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 scans workspace project structure and returns auto-steering context including language, framework, package manager, folder structure, and key files. This verb and resource are specific and distinguish it from siblings like sdd_discover or sdd_check_ecosystem.

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 implies use for obtaining project structure context but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sdd_discover, sdd_check_ecosystem, or sdd_cross_analyze. Given many sibling tools, lacking differentiation is a gap.

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