rvtdocs_scan

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions 'minimal output' and 'low token cost' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. Essential behavioral context is missing.

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 a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It could be more informative without being much longer, e.g., by specifying the input domain.

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 tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the output nature, what is scanned, and the meaning of 'resolve and trust-check'. It lacks this context, making it insufficient for correct 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. However, it only hints at max_chars via 'minimal output' and 'low token cost', without clarifying format or meaning of query or year. The parameter defaults are already in schema but not explained.

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 states it resolves and trust-checks a query with minimal output, indicating a concise response, but the verb 'resolve and trust-check' is vague and doesn't specify what is being scanned (documents, code, etc.). It differentiates from siblings only by mentioning low token cost, but the core purpose is unclear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., rvtdocs_fetch for full output). The description implies use for low-cost queries but provides no exclusions or context for selecting alternatives.

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