vg_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (grade A/B/C/D/? plus per-finding severity, file, line, snippet). It omits whether the scan writes a report file, how long it takes on large repos, or whether any auth/permission is required — meaningful gaps for a scan tool.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading what the tool is before describing the return value. Efficient, though the return sentence could be trimmed since it partially duplicates what an agent infers from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly supplies the return shape, and all four parameters are optional and documented in the schema. Still missing are side-effect/permission context and any differentiation from the very similar sibling scan_genes.

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 100% and each parameter already has a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The prose adds nothing about the parameters (e.g. what 'all' changes in the report, or how gene_id is used) beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific verb+resource (static security scan of Gene/Skill code) and even names the V(g) metric, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool scan_genes, leaving the agent to guess which scanner to pick.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling scan_genes as an alternative. The only routing hint is the default path behavior implied by the schema.

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