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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or the nature of the diagnostics. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 sentence of 9 words, which is concise but under-informative. It lacks important details about parameters and output, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what diagnostics contain. It does not. The three parameters are ignored, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct usage.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. With 0% schema coverage, it fails to explain the role of project_path or how response_mode affects output. The enum for response_mode is in the schema but not elaborated.

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 states the verb (Send), resource (one embedding request), and purpose (return diagnostics for compatibility). It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with repository management.

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?

While the purpose implies testing compatibility, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. The sibling tools are unrelated, so context is implicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the default response_mode is paths_only, and mode=keyword avoids embedding requests (an implicit no-network path). However it says nothing about permissions, side effects, latency, or what the payload actually contains beyond the three response modes.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary routing statement front-loaded and no filler. Slightly dense in the middle sentence but every clause carries information.

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 15-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits what a 'context pack' returns, how related-file expansion works, and the meaning of nearly all tuning parameters. An agent could call it with just query, but would be guessing on every other field.

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% across 15 parameters, yet the description explains only response_mode and the keyword value of mode. The thirteen sizing/related-context parameters (max_results, related_depth, include_related_snippets, etc.) get no semantic explanation, so the compensation is far from complete.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('task-oriented code lookup') and a scoping condition ('for unknown file locations'), which tells an agent this is a discovery tool rather than an index or diagnostic one. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it competes with (repo_semantic_search), so differentiation is inferred from the mode/embedding hint rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear context ('Preferred ... for unknown file locations') and a conditional routing rule: use mode=keyword when you want local lookup without embedding requests. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of full 5-level guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists diagnostic areas but does not mention potential side effects, permissions required, whether it is destructive, or the format of the output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 front-loads the purpose, but it could be better structured by listing diagnostic areas or including parameter context.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return values and behavior. It only lists diagnostic categories without details on output format, making it incomplete for an AI agent to anticipate the tool's response.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain the two parameters (project_path, response_mode), failing to add any meaning beyond the schema's type and enum definitions.

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 states the tool runs local diagnostics for specific areas (runtime, native modules, config, WSL interop, index health) and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing it does not call embedding APIs.

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 indicates when to use this tool (local diagnostics without embedding APIs) by contrasting with alternatives like gemini_embedding_probe, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other sibling tools like repo_index_status.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'Show' implying read-only, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the verb.

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?

Single sentence is concise but under-specified. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, not earning its place.

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?

No output schema and description does not explain return values. For a status tool, it is incomplete—missing what 'index status' entails or what information is returned.

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%, but description does not mention parameters. It fails to explain project_path or response_mode enum values, leaving parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Show Scythe Context configuration and current index status,' clearly indicating a read-only status tool. It distinguishes from siblings like repo_reindex (reindexing) and repo_semantic_search (searching), though 'Scythe Context' is not explained.

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like repo_doctor or repo_reindex. The description implies a status check but lacks explicit context for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions scanning and writing metadata but does not disclose if the operation is destructive, overwrites existing data, or requires specific permissions. Side effects and state changes are not described.

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 necessary detail. It is front-loaded but lacks structure for a tool with many parameters.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools requiring differentiation, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the reindexing process, parameter semantics, or return value behavior.

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 does not explain any of the 10 parameters. Terms like dry_run, response_mode, and index_embeddings are left undefined, so the agent gains no insight 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 clearly states the action ('Scan a project, write metadata, and optionally index embeddings'), which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like repo_doctor (diagnose) and repo_semantic_search (search) by focusing on reindexing.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like repo_index_status or repo_doctor. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where reindexing is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'compact' output but does not describe the full mode, side effects, safety, or any other behavioral traits. For a read-heavy tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence with no fluff, efficiently communicating the core action. However, it could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain return values, parameter effects, or provide sufficient context 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%, but the description adds little to parameter understanding. Only 'compact' mode is hinted; path, max_results, and project_path are not explained. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to show compact symbols, imports, and reverse imports for a single indexed file given a known candidate path. The verb 'Show' and the specific resources 'compact symbols, imports, and reverse imports' provide precise context.

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 implies usage 'after a candidate path is known' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., repo_semantic_search, repo_context_pack). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose response-size/cost tradeoffs via paths_only vs snippets. However it never states the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor does it mention latency, indexing prerequisites, or what happens with an unindexed project — meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the purpose leads and the routing guidance follows. Some jargon ('raw ranking', 'scores') is compressed rather than explained, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the routing decision but not the mechanics an agent needs to call it correctly — mode/response_mode semantics, result-count and context-size behavior, or output shape are all absent.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only alludes to response_mode values (paths_only/snippets) and to 'scores'; the mode enum (keyword/hybrid/semantic), max_results, max_context_chars, max_snippet_chars, and project_path are left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('debug raw semantic or hybrid ranking over indexed chunks') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling repo_context_pack for normal lookups. An agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use routing: prefer repo_context_pack for normal lookup, use paths_only to scout cheaply, and snippets only when scores or fuller snippets are needed. This is exactly the alternative-selection guidance the dimension asks for.

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