scrape_codebase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool walks directories and extracts signatures/docstrings, and optionally generates API docs and dependency graphs. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., writing files to the output directory), permissions needed, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 two sentences and efficiently states the purpose and key behaviors. There is no fluff, but it could be more structured (e.g., listing parameters). Still, it earns a high score for 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?

Given 7 parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits explanations for four parameters and does not cover return values (though an output schema exists but is not shown). For a complex tool that walks directories and generates outputs, the description provides insufficient detail for full understanding.

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 compensate. It only explains 'directory' and the two boolean options (build_api_reference, build_dependency_graph). The other parameters (output, depth, languages, file_patterns) are not described, leaving the agent to guess their meaning beyond name/type/default.

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: analyzing a local codebase and extracting code knowledge. It enumerates specific actions (walks directory, analyzes files, extracts signatures/docstrings) and optional outputs (API reference, dependency graphs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like scrape_docs or scrape_github which target external sources.

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 the tool is for local codebase analysis, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tool names (e.g., scrape_github, scrape_docs) hint at context, but no direct comparison is offered.

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