review_security

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to disclose behavioral traits. The description lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, what data might be sent to an external AI provider, or the format of the returned output. The phrasing 'deep cybersecurity audit' adds little beyond the purpose.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes specific focus areas. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description adequately states the tool's purpose and focus, and the schema covers parameters. However, there is no output schema, so the description should mention the expected return value (e.g., a security report), which it does not. The lack of behavioral and usage details makes it a minimally viable description.

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%, with each parameter (model, provider, code_or_config) already described. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, reducing its value beyond the schema to baseline.

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 description clearly states the tool performs a deep cybersecurity audit with specific focus areas (OWASP, secret leaks, access control), using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling review tools like review_code and review_performance.

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 clearly defines the context for use ('deep cybersecurity audit') and the specific security concerns, which helps an agent decide when to select it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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