websex_checkov

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does disclose meaningful execution traits: checkov is invoked with raw argv tokens and no shell parsing (an injection-relevant detail), and it runs scoped to the engagement namespace with relative artifact paths. It does not state side effects, permissions, or whether scan output is persisted, which matters for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded ('Run checkov...'), followed by execution model and scoping. No padding or repetition, though the engagement-namespace and relative-path clauses could be folded together.

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. The description covers the execution model and working-directory behavior, which is the essential context for a CLI-wrapper tool. It still omits preconditions (e.g., whether an engagement must exist first) and stdin handling, leaving gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

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 implicitly covers three of four parameters: 'argv tokens' maps to arguments, 'engagement namespace' to engagement_id, and 'relative paths for engagement artifacts' to working_directory. The stdin parameter is never addressed, and no format or semantics are given for any of them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: run checkov from the WebSex container IaC toolkit. An agent understands this is an IaC scanning wrapper. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling IaC/cloud scanners like websex_terrascan, websex_trivy, or websex_prowler, so differentiation is left to the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose checkov over the other IaC scanners (terrascan, trivy, prowler) or what inputs it expects. The line about running from the engagement namespace and using relative paths is operational setup, not a when/when-not directive. Usage must be inferred from the tool name.

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