comet_security_scan

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does provide meaningful detail by listing detection categories: hidden text, CSS-invisible elements, injection attempts, and suspicious content. However, it does not state whether the scan is read-only, whether it executes scripts, or whether it makes network requests—relevant context for a security tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and object ('Deep security scan of current page') and then adds concrete detail. There is no filler and no repetition of schema information.

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 no-argument tool, the description names the page under inspection and the main detection axes, and an output schema exists to cover return values. It falls just short of full completeness because it omits any statement about side effects, required page state, or whether a prior navigation is necessary.

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?

The input schema is empty with 0 parameters and effectively 100% coverage, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly avoids introducing parameter-specific claims.

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 states a specific operation ('Deep security scan') on a specific resource ('current page') and enumerates concrete detection targets. None of the sibling tools overlap with this function, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Usage is implied: scan the current page when security inspection is needed. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternative tools are named. The moderate gap is acceptable for a zero-parameter tool with a unique purpose.

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