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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states limits, the indicator-only nature of results, that it makes no model calls, does not fetch repositories, does not execute code, and returns a redacted signed receipt.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by constraints and behavioral guarantees. The '$1' token is slightly cryptic and harms absolute clarity, but every sentence otherwise earns 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers boundaries, side effects, and output expectations well. The main gap is the undocumented agent_id parameter and the absence of explicit sibling-tool routing guidance.

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 explicitly define either parameter. It hints at the 'source' parameter through 'inline source scan' and the size limits, but 'agent_id' is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without enough semantic grounding for one of the two required arguments.

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 opening phrase 'VulnCanon source scan' names the exact operation and resource with a clear scoping qualifier ('inline'). The caveat 'indicators, not proven exploits' further positions the tool's purpose, making it distinct from deeper analysis or enforcement tools.

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 when to use the tool: for small, inline source snippets, given the 64 KiB/2000-line limits and the statement that it performs no repository fetching. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any sibling tool such as security_preflight or screen_injection as an alternative.

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