diff_ci_security

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it runs the full engine on both states, reconciles findings using line-independent identity, produces verdicts, and provides detailed findings. It also notes it uses 'heuristic static analysis, not a guarantee' and mentions premium requirements (API key). This is thorough and transparent.

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 quite long but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage. While it could be slightly more concise, it avoids redundancy and maintains a clear logical flow.

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 complexity (2 required params with nested objects, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains input format, output verdicts, and the line-independent identity mechanism. It even describes the findings' structure (file:line, taint path, fix). All essential information is covered.

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 the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the before/after shape, mentions the two formats (files/source), lists additional optional fields like orbYmls and actionYmls, and clarifies how to provide each side. This goes beyond 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 it performs a 'DIFFERENTIAL CI/CD security check', comparing before/after states of CI config files. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'audit_ci_security' which likely does single-state auditing. The verb and resource are specific, and the purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicitly tells when to use: 'Use it on every PR that touches CI config — wire INTRODUCES_RISK to a failing status check.' It contrasts with single-state analysis, explaining that this tool provides a delta that an agent cannot compute alone. This gives clear context and alternatives.

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