security_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Scan') but doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, its side effects (e.g., if it logs or triggers alerts), performance characteristics, or authentication needs. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with security systems.

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 extremely concise at one sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (security scanning), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and parameter context, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it doesn't mention any parameters. The schema defines one required parameter 'component_id', but the description adds no semantic context about what a component is or how to identify it, leaving the agent reliant solely on 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('a component'), specifying the goal is for 'security vulnerabilities'. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'security_audit' by focusing on scanning rather than auditing, though the distinction isn't explicitly articulated.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or how it differs from similar tools like 'security_audit' or 'check_dependencies', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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