audit_security_vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists what is detected but does not state the tool's nature (e.g., read-only, static analysis), what it returns (e.g., a report, list of findings), or any side effects or limitations. The absence of these details leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent invoking the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the specific vulnerability classes. It avoids fluff and is easy to parse, though it could be more compact by trimming 'defensive' (redundant with 'security audits').

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain the return format (e.g., a report, severity levels, recommended fixes) and any constraints (e.g., snippet size, language support). It does neither, leaving the agent without a clear picture of what to expect after invocation. The two parameters are documented, but the tool's output is entirely unspecified.

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%: both 'code_snippet' and 'language_or_framework' have meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the burden, which it does here.

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 verb ('performs'), resource ('defensive security audits on code snippets'), and enumerates concrete vulnerability categories (hardcoded secrets, injection, CORS, sanitization, JWT). It clearly differentiates from audit_performance_bottlenecks by focusing on security rather than 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 implies usage when analyzing code for security flaws, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as generate_security_hardening or audit_performance_bottlenecks. No exclusions or conditions are given; an agent must infer from the focused scope.

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