scan_component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description still adds high-value behavioral facts: execution is local, deterministic, and the component's code is never run. That no-execution guarantee is the key trust property for a supply-chain scanner and is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, no redundancy, and the core purpose plus the 'use before installing' directive are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned report contents (verdict, risk_score 0-100, findings with file/line evidence, capabilities). Combined with the safety and execution profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage that already specifies the exact accepted syntaxes (path, git URL, npm:<name>[@version], pypi:<name>[==version]). The description's list of component types overlaps that coverage rather than extending it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb (statically scan) and resource (AI component), and enumerates the accepted component kinds and the four risk classes it looks for. It is unmistakably distinct from diff_components and list_rules in substance, but it never names or explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

"Use this BEFORE installing or trusting a component" gives an explicit triggering condition and timing, which is genuinely actionable. There is no when-not guidance and no mention of when diff_components or list_rules would be the better choice.

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