PythonSafetyChecker

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 that it 'runs' the checker and 'returns findings', which implies a read-only analysis, but it does not explicitly say it does not modify files. It also does not describe the output format or potential error conditions. It does add useful context about the specific checks performed, but leaves ambiguity about non-destructive behavior.

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, consisting of two sentences that are front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every piece of information (the types of checks and the fact that findings are returned) earns its place. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (two optional params, no required params, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what it does and what to expect. It covers the purpose and the high-level result ('Returns findings'), though it does not detail the findings' structure. Annotations are absent, but the description compensates with specifics about the checks performed. It is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 input schema covers both parameters (target, timeout) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the target implicitly through 'against Python files'. Since the schema already explains the parameters, the description provides no extra semantic value, aligning with the baseline score of 3.

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 runs a Python safety checker, specifying the exact checks (Bandit security, Ruff style/lint, AST mutable default args) and that it targets Python files. The verb 'Run' specifies the action, and the resource is the Python checker. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other languages.

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 implies usage for Python files, which is the clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools (JsSafetyChecker, ShellSafetyChecker) and the direct mention of 'Python files' provide enough situational guidance. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, making it a clear context without full when/when-not articulation.

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