gk_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the best-effort nature, optional semgrep usage, and a notable fallback where unknown actions return the allowed list. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what any schema would show, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential side effects.

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 long, highly efficient, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs purpose, invocation, and a behavioral quirk into a compact form without redundancy. Every clause contributes 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?

The description outlines purpose, invocation, and fallback behavior, but omits the specific action names and arg keys, which are critical for correct use. The unknown-action fallback helps mitigate errors, and an output schema exists, but for a tool with only two actions, listing them would have made it 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 the description must compensate, but it only restates that action is required and args is optional. It fails to enumerate the two allowed actions or describe the expected structure of args. The note about 'unknown action returns allowed list' provides some insight into action values, but still leaves the actual actions a mystery.

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 identifies the tool as performing regex-based CWE heuristics, distinguishing it from a professional audit by labeling it as a signal. It references optional semgrep CLI integration, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name 'scan'.

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 suggests using this tool for quick, best-effort heuristic signals rather than a professional audit, which implies context but does not name alternatives. It provides invocation guidance ('Pass action= and optional args={}') but no explicit when-to-use vs. other gk_* tools. There is no explicit exclusion or comparison to siblings.

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