sumo_qa_scan_repo

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reads the repository and optionally writes an artifact to disk via `write_to`. It notes that the artifact is deterministic except for a timestamp field. It does not mention permissions or side effects (no destructive hint, so writing is not destructive). Adequate transparency for a non-destructive scan 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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The natural-language phrasings are helpful but add length. Each sentence earns its place, though the description could be slightly tighter. Still efficient overall.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (compact summary with various counts) and what the optional artifact contains. It covers the key aspects. For a scan tool with 3 parameters, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so description fully explains parameters. It describes `root` as the repository to scan, `generator_version` defaults to installed version, and `write_to` as optional path for writing the artifact. It adds determinism context for the output. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 walks a repository and returns a compact QA-relevant summary, listing specific outputs (per-type node counts, edge counts, command counts, warning counts). It distinguishes from siblings like sumo_qa_query_repo_map by noting it generates the artifact, while query_repo_map likely queries it. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 common natural-language phrasings that trigger this tool, such as 'map this repo' or 'scan the repo'. This helps agents select it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with siblings beyond implicit behavior. Clear context for use is given, but exclusions are missing.

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