deep_scan_bugs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes what the tool analyzes but does not state whether it is read-only, whether it modifies files, how findings are reported, or if there are any side effects. The read-only nature of a scanner is implied but never explicitly stated, leaving the agent to infer safety.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key coverage areas. It is appropriately sized, though the trailing 'and more' adds minor unnecessary vagueness without earning its place.

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?

The tool has a moderately complex interface with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The bare-bones description does not explain return values, pagination of results, or how scanMode affects output, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema and enums. This is inadequate for a tool with no structured annotations to lean on.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description adds some semantic value by listing categories (tables, lists, security, types) that map to scanMode enum values, giving meaning to that parameter. However, it does not explain the fileType parameter's role or how scanMode interacts with fileType, leaving gaps for two of three parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a comprehensive bug scanner for Livewire/Laravel and enumerates specific coverage areas (tables, lists, pagination, validation, security, types), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like security_audit (which focuses only on security) and scan_project_bugs (which implies project-level scanning). However, it doesn't explicitly state that it scans a provided code snippet versus a whole project, creating slight ambiguity.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists capabilities but does not state conditions for selection, exclusions, or mention that security_audit or scan_project_bugs might be better suited for specific scenarios. The 'and more' is vague and doesn't help an agent decide between this and other scanning/fixing tools.

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