scan_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions scanning, .gitignore support, and grading, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires permissions. The safety profile is implied rather than explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loading purpose and then providing usage guidance. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers verbosity well but does not explain other important parameters like exclude/include patterns, diff_only, or cross_file. The schema provides details, but the description could better guide parameter usage for completeness.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds meaning by explaining verbosity levels, which is beyond the enum values. However, other parameters like 'diff_only', 'recursive', and 'exclude_patterns' are not elaborated, so value addition is partial.

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 the tool scans a directory for security vulnerabilities with .gitignore support and security grading. It distinguishes from siblings like 'scan_packages' or 'scan_git_diff' by specifying 'entire directory' and unique features.

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 explicit guidance on verbosity levels ('minimal' for grade+counts, 'compact' for top issues, 'full' for all details), but does not mention when to avoid this tool or alternatives among the many sibling scanning tools.

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