scan_text

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 does disclose one meaningful trait: the operation does not write to disk. But it doesn't mention whether the scan is read-only, what side effects or requirements exist, or what the return format is. This is partial disclosure, but not comprehensive.

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 that leads with the primary action and key constraint. Every word adds value, and it avoids redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior but leaves gaps: parameter semantics are unexplained, and differentiation from sibling scan tools (scan_workspace, scan_diff, etc.) is only implicit. An agent might not know exactly when to choose this over alternatives without additional context.

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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters. While the names 'text' and 'label' are fairly self-explanatory, the description does not clarify expected formats, defaults, or how the label is used. The description fails to compensate 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 states the verb 'scan' and the resource 'inline text snippet', clearly distinguishing it from file- or workspace-based scans. However, it doesn't specify the type or goal of the scan (e.g., security, content analysis), leaving some ambiguity about what the scan actually does.

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 phrase 'inline text snippet' and 'without writing it to disk' strongly imply the intended use case: scanning text passed directly rather than from a file. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., scan_workspace, scan_diff) or state when those would be preferred, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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