CheckCDKNagSuppressions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's scanning behavior and security oversight purpose, but doesn't mention performance characteristics, error handling, or what happens when both 'code' and 'file_path' parameters are provided/null. Some behavioral context is missing for a tool that analyzes code.

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 appropriately sized with clear sections (purpose, scanning behavior, args, returns). Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more naturally. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 code analysis tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description provides adequate but incomplete coverage. It explains what the tool does and the parameters, but lacks details about return format, error conditions, and the relationship between the two input parameters. The security guidance mentioned in returns is vague.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. It explains that 'code' contains CDK code to analyze and 'file_path' points to a file with CDK code, clarifying the dual input approach. However, it doesn't specify format requirements or mutual exclusivity rules.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Check', 'Scans') and resources ('CDK code', 'TypeScript/JavaScript code', 'NagSuppressions usage'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on security suppression analysis rather than general guidance, rule explanation, or schema generation.

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 implies usage when analyzing CDK code for security suppressions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ExplainCDKNagRule' or 'CDKGeneralGuidance'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's specific context.

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