security_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the output shape (source evidence, attacker prerequisites, fixes, validation steps), states it is static, and explicitly bounds its claims with 'explicit coverage limits'. It stops short of describing pagination or runtime behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the caveats follow. Slightly compressed, but every sentence carries distinct information (scope, returns, limitations).

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to describe what comes back (evidence, prerequisites, fixes, validation steps, coverage limits). Combined with the scope disclaimer, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the relationship to sibling tools remains unaddressed.

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%, so path, offline and min_severity are already fully documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only indirect signal (dependency risks hinting at the offline lookups), which does not meaningfully extend the schema.

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') and enumerates concrete resource domains (data exposure, account access, unsafe code execution, backend rules, dependency risks) for a mobile app. The scope is clear enough to distinguish it from generic siblings like measure_bundle or upgrade_plan, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, scan_project.

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 closing sentence sets a boundary ('does not claim a live penetration test or a clean bill of health'), which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus a real pentest. However, it gives no positive when-to-use cue and never names an alternative sibling (e.g. scan_project or check_library) for overlapping checks.

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