boundary_findings

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

The description adds 'deterministic,' which clarifies that results are reproducible, and lists specific finding types. However, it does not explain how the analysis works, what assumptions are made, or what coverage/limitations exist. The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, so the description provides moderate additional value.

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 sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Deterministic risk findings') and then enumerates specific categories. Every word contributes value, with no repetition or irrelevant detail.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description lists output types but lacks details on the format of findings (e.g., list, report), the number of results, or whether these categories are exhaustive. The description is adequate but leaves some gaps, especially regarding how the agent should process the returned findings.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers inputs. The description correctly mentions no parameters and does not need to add semantic detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 identifies the tool as reporting deterministic risk findings and enumerates specific categories (hardcoded secrets, raw SQL, auth tokens, routes without auth guards). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'report'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xray_scan or production_readiness. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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