scan_code_for_apis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'scans' and 'discovers' but does not disclose what files are scanned, what constitutes discovery, whether it modifies files, or any side effects. This lack of behavioral detail is a gap.

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 sentence of 9 words with no redundancy. It is efficiently written but could optionally include more context without becoming verbose. No structural issues.

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 the simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It lacks details on output format, file scope, and behavior. For a scanning tool, more context (e.g., what happens with discovered APIs) is expected.

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% for the single parameter projectPath, which already provides a clear description ('Absolute path to the local source code'). The tool description adds no further detail, so the baseline of 3 is 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 uses a specific verb 'scans' and identifies the resource 'local project directory' with a clear goal 'discover REST APIs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_logs or analyze_service_health.

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 implicitly suggests use when discovering APIs in local code, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations. The purpose alone gives enough context for basic selection.

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