privacy_scan_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes what is detected but not how the tool behaves: nothing about whether it is read-only, what permissions or network access it needs, whether it writes a report, or any limits. For a no-annotation tool this is a real gap.

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 sentences, no filler, and the capability statement is front-loaded ahead of the usage condition. Every clause earns its place by naming a distinct detection category.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and no path documentation, the description leaves gaps around invocation and behavior that an agent would need before calling it confidently.

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 single 'path' parameter (default ".") is never explained in the description. The description says "scan source code" but does not clarify whether path is a file, directory, or glob, so it fails to compensate for the empty schema documentation.

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?

Names a specific verb (Scan) and resource (source code) and enumerates the three detection categories: hardcoded secrets, PII in logs, third-party leakage. It does not name or contrast with any of the siblings (privacy_preflight, privacy_check_trace, privacy_redact), so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

"Use when you only need the current state and not the change since last time" gives an explicit selection condition and implies a diff-based alternative exists. It stops short of naming that alternative tool, so the agent must still infer which sibling handles the change-since-last-time case.

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