code_scan_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. 'Scan' and 'suggest' imply a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is helpful, but it does not state that nothing is written, how large codebases are handled, or what the suggestions look like. Adequate but leaves real behavioral questions unanswered.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the usage cue second. No filler or repetition.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description still conveys the action, the target files, and the result category (mappings by name), which is enough for correct invocation. It could go slightly further on what the scan returns or how mappings are keyed, but the essentials are present.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (root) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains its meaning and default. The description adds nothing about the parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Scan the codebase (React/Next) for exported UI components' — plus the secondary output of suggested Figma↔code mappings. It is clear and concrete, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the close sibling code_mapping, so an agent must infer the division of labor between the two.

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?

It states a clear usage moment: 'Use before implementing a Figma design so existing components are reused.' That is a genuine when-to-use directive, but there is no when-not guidance and no explicit alternative (e.g., code_mapping) called out for the mapping-lookup case.

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