security_audit

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered; the description still adds non-obvious context: that it is static rather than a live penetration test, that it will not issue a clean bill of health, and that output includes attacker prerequisites and explicit coverage limits. It stops short of stating network-dependency behavior for the offline path or runtime/pagination characteristics.

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?

Front-loaded with what it covers and what it returns, then routing guidance, then scope caveats. The quoted user-question examples cost some length but help matching; four sentences with no filler.

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 read-only three-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers the scan surface, the shape of the findings (evidence, prerequisites, fixes, validation), and the honesty caveats an agent needs to set expectations. Nothing required to invoke or interpret it correctly is missing.

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% and all three parameters (path, offline, min_severity) are documented in the schema with a defaulted enum. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (review) over a concrete set of resources (data exposure, account access, unsafe code execution, backend rules, dependency risks) and names scan_project as the sibling it differs from. An agent can tell exactly which tool to open without comparing schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers with quoted user phrasings ("can this app be hacked", "is user data safe", pre-release review) and an explicit when-not ("For an overall health check use scan_project"), plus a depth relationship between the two. Nothing is left to inference.

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