guardian_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses conditional behavior based on parameters (scan_uncommitted, target_path, default) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires certain permissions. This is a gap 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with 'Versatile security scanner.' The three bullet points each explain a distinct scenario in a single line, with no redundant 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 tool with 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main behavior well. The only missing context is the precedence rule when both parameters are provided, and it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., Git repo for scan_uncommitted). Overall, it is fairly 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. It effectively explains both parameters: scan_uncommitted triggers Git diff scanning, target_path scans a specific file/folder, and default scans cwd. However, it does not specify precedence when both parameters are provided, leaving ambiguity.

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 it is a 'security scanner' and explains its versatile behavior through parameter-based conditions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by showing different scan scopes (uncommitted, specific path, current directory), but does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance by explaining the behavior for each parameter: 'If scan_uncommitted is True', 'If target_path is provided', and the default. However, it does not mention exclusions or explicitly compare with sibling tools like scan_project_files or global_security_audit.

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