websex_terrascan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses execution mechanics ('executes terrascan directly with the supplied argv tokens; shell parsing is never used'), which tells the agent arguments are passed verbatim rather than through a shell, and notes the working namespace. It does not address permissions, whether the scan writes artifacts, network/policy-fetch behavior, or anything about side effects.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the exec/path caveats following. Every sentence carries information; only the namespace/path sentence could be slightly tighter.

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. For a CLI-wrapping tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the agent still lacks semantics for engagement_id and stdin, and gets no guidance on sibling scanner selection. Adequate but with real gaps.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'supplied argv tokens' clarifies that `arguments` is a token array with no shell interpretation, and 'use relative paths' speaks to `working_directory`. However, `engagement_id` and `stdin` are never explained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 terrascan from the WebSex cloud container iac toolkit.' An agent immediately knows this wraps the terrascan IaC scanner, not a generic executor. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the IaC/cloud scanner siblings such as websex_checkov, websex_trivy, or websex_prowler.

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?

Provides operational context — 'Runs from the selected engagement namespace; use relative paths for engagement artifacts' — which implies the tool should be used inside an engagement context. But it never says when to prefer terrascan over the overlapping checkov/trivy/prowler scanners, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied, not stated.

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