scan_files

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

No annotations are provided (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It only states 'scan multiple files' and output structure, but does not specify the type of scan (e.g., security, secrets, code quality) or any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with many scanning siblings.

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 concise sentences, no fluff. The purpose and output structure are front-loaded. However, it could be structured to include a quick usage condition without adding length.

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 rich sibling context (23 tools including scan_file, scan_code, check_secrets, etc.) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description falls short. It doesn't specify what type of scanning is performed or how findings relate to those from sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100% (both 'path' and 'language' have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own documentation—e.g., it doesn't explain how 'language' hint affects scanning or how grouping by file works. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool scans multiple files in one call and describes expected output (findings grouped by file with a summary). This directly addresses the sibling tool 'scan_file' by explicitly targeting multiple files, differentiating it effectively.

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 implies use for scanning multiple files at once, and the sibling list includes 'scan_file' for single files, but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided. Context is implied rather than stated, leaving the agent to infer alternatives.

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