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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the scope of the scan (types of vulnerabilities) without explaining side effects, state changes, or the format of results. The verb 'check' implies a read-only operation, but this is not explicitly stated, nor is any output contract or limitation 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, tight sentence with a clear verb-object structure and no filler; it front-loads the action and scope effectively.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description would benefit from noting the return format (e.g., list of vulnerabilities with locations). It currently provides the core purpose but omits any detail about what the caller receives, which is a clear gap given no output schema exists.

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 100% (both code and filename have descriptions), so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter details in the description. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters, such as how filename influences the analysis or expected input formats.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'check' and resource 'code', with explicit scope 'security vulnerabilities only' and examples (hardcoded secrets, SQL injection, XSS) that distinguish it from broader siblings like analyze_code or validate_code. The 'only' qualifier crisply differentiates it from general code analysis 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 phrase 'security vulnerabilities only' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when security review is the goal—and implicitly excludes non-security checks. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other analysis types, so it falls short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guide.

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