scan_candidates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, read-only status, or output format. The phrase 'recurring declared names with no word' hints at the search criterion but not at the behavior of the tool.

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 short sentence, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified; the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. It does not waste words, but it also does not provide enough information to be considered well-structured.

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 simple schema and an output schema, so return values are not necessarily needed in the description. However, the core function and purpose are not clearly explained, and the description leaves significant ambiguity. The context provided by siblings like 'scan_surface' and 'ontology_check' does not compensate for the lack of descriptive detail.

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?

The input schema has a single parameter 'top' with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention 'top' at all, failing to explain that it likely controls the number of results. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's default value.

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 'Vocabulary the codebase is asking for: recurring declared names with no word' provides a specific focus but lacks an explicit verb or clear action statement. It implies the tool identifies candidates for vocabulary additions, but does not state that it scans or returns them. This makes the purpose clear in a vague sense, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It only defines the topic of the scan, leaving the user to infer usage from the tool name.

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