sc_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only offers a vague 'comprehensive security analysis' without details on what is scanned, side effects, permissions, or output format. This provides minimal insight into actual tool behavior.

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 very concise, consisting of a single phrase with no wasted words. However, 'Security scanning' and 'Comprehensive security analysis' are somewhat redundant, yet the structure is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a high-level overview.

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?

This is a complex tool with four parameters, including a nested evidence object, and no output schema. The description provides no context about what the scanning entails, how to use flags or args, or what the tool returns, making it incomplete for effective invocation.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 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 'Security scanning - Comprehensive security analysis' clearly identifies the tool's core function (security scanning) and suggests broad coverage. It distinguishes from siblings like sc_analyze by specifying security, though it lacks explicit scope such as code, dependencies, or secrets.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use sc_scan versus other sibling tools like sc_analyze or sc_test. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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