scan_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool scans the project, auto-detects multiple manifest formats, queries live OSV.dev data, and returns a structured vulnerability report with severity counts, risk score, and fix recommendations. It does not explicitly state whether the scan modifies files, which would be useful for a tool that may be followed by apply_fixes.

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 three focused sentences. The first states the core action, the second lists capabilities and data source, and the third gives usage ordering. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid high-level picture: input is a project directory, it detects manifests, queries OSV.dev, and returns a structured report with specific components. It lacks an explicit statement about side effects or network requirements, but the visible detail is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly as a first step.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the three parameters, so the baseline for value-add is 3. The description reinforces that path refers to a project directory and mentions OSV.dev, which relates to the offline parameter, but it adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 has a specific verb and resource: 'Scan a project directory for CVE vulnerabilities.' It also differentiates itself from siblings by stating this is the first step before open_dashboard or apply_fixes. The tool's role as a scanner that produces a report is unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this as the first step before open_dashboard or apply_fixes.' This names alternatives and establishes context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or describe any exclusions for the sibling get_fix_commands, so it falls just short of a 5.

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