websex_trivy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: argv tokens are passed directly with no shell parsing, and execution occurs in the selected engagement namespace. It omits permissions/auth requirements, failure behavior, and whether anything is written to disk, which is thin for a mutation-capable scanner executed via a container.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then security-relevant execution semantics, then path guidance. No filler, though the phrase 'from the WebSex cloud container iac toolkit' is slightly redundant with the name.

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 no explanation, and the argv/no-shell and namespace behaviors are covered. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, more detail on stdin, path resolution relative to the engagement, and expected scan targets would be needed to call it complete.

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, and it partially does: 'supplied argv tokens' maps to arguments and 'relative paths' maps to working_directory/engagement namespace. The stdin parameter is never explained and the engagement_id concept is only hinted at via 'namespace', leaving real gaps.

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 (Run) and resource (trivy) scoped to the 'iac toolkit', which distinguishes it from sibling IaC scanners like checkov and terrascan that live in the same list. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Implies usage via 'iac toolkit' and gives one practical directive ('use relative paths for engagement artifacts'), but never says when to pick trivy over checkov, terrascan, or kube_bench, nor states prerequisites like needing an existing engagement namespace.

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