scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none: it does not say whether the operation is read-only, what scope it scans, how costly it is on a large project, or how results are returned. The only hint is a dangling schema name (ce.scan-report) that the agent cannot resolve.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than tight structure.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain scope, read-only nature, and roughly what the report contains; instead it points at an external schema name the agent cannot inspect. The reference is a dangling pointer, leaving key behavior undocumented.

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 single path parameter (default: project root) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the work.

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 names the resource it produces (a size/complexity/readability metrics report) but supplies no verb, so it is unclear whether the tool scans, computes, or merely retrieves. It also does nothing to separate itself from adjacent siblings such as structure, churn, or check, leaving the agent to guess which reporting tool applies.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for adjacent analysis tasks. The agent receives no routing guidance whatsoever.

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