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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds crucial behavioral details: it explicitly notes that ${{ secrets.FOO }} and ${{ env.FOO }} references are NOT flagged, only literal secret values, and imposes a 500 KB limit. It also states 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' and includes a fallback feedback instruction, all consistent with annotations.

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 dense but each sentence contributes necessary information: purpose, input method, parameter constraints, output, a critical behavioral caveat, and feedback routing. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids fluff, though it is longer than average due to the detailed behavioral and feedback notes.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to provide input, parameter nuances, return structure (risk_level and findings), limitations, and a fallback path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for config_type: it specifies that vercel and netlify only get secrets checking in Sprint 8, while github_actions gets a full check suite. This nuance is not in the schema and helps the agent understand scope limitations.

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: scanning CI configs for exposed secrets, missing lockfile enforcement, and unpinned dependencies. It specifies the target resources (GitHub Actions, Vercel, Netlify) and the input method (paste content), distinguishing it from sibling tools like frontend_security_audit_manifest (which likely handles manifests) and frontend_security_detect_typosquatting.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (when you have CI config content to scan) and notes 'no filesystem access required', implying the content must be pasted. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the specific scope (CI configs) provides enough context for an agent to route correctly.

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