scan_path

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares read-only, lists exclusions (vendored/build folders, .env files, symlinks), and explains that source lines are hidden by default for secret hygiene. It doesn't cover output shape, error behavior, or how truncation at max_files is signalled.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, exclusions, secret-hiding default, and safety profile. The most operationally important constraint (read-only, secrets hidden) is easy to find and nothing is padded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety profile and filtering behavior an agent needs before calling. The remaining gaps—return shape and the role of max_files—are minor but real for a three-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does explain the default behavior behind show_source (source lines hidden so secrets are never echoed) and characterizes path as a local folder. max_files is never mentioned, and no defaults or bounds are given for either optional parameter.

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 and resource ("Scan a local folder") and differentiates itself from the sibling scan_code by scope (local folder vs. code scan) while reusing its heuristics. It never says what the scan looks for, leaving the agent to infer the purpose from scan_code, which is why this isn't a 5.

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 "local folder" framing and the reference to scan_code imply this is the on-disk counterpart to the code scanner, so usage context is reasonably clear. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the path must be inside an allowed workspace.

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