scan_repository

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers important behavior: it uses a live cloud scanner, supports only public repositories, returns a scan ID, and will trigger an account connection flow if needed. It does not mention quota usage or rate limits, but that is not essential for a first call.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence, bulleted source and finding lists, and a concise closing statement about behavior. It uses space efficiently and front-loads the core purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: acceptable inputs, what the scan checks, what is returned, and what happens when no account is connected. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool and know the next step.

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%, so the input schema already explains all three parameters sufficiently. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter meaning.

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 it scans a public repository and lists the specific risk categories it checks for. It also distinguishes the target resource from siblings like scan_website and scan_claw_skill by naming repository sources explicitly.

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 supported source types and the note about account connection imply when to use this tool, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling tools. The mention of get_scan_results as the follow-up step provides useful workflow context.

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