check_destructive_surface

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'fast gate' implying lightweight but does not explain side effects, state changes, or behavior on invalid input. Lack of detail on whether it modifies data or is read-only.

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?

Description is a single sentence, concise but overly brief. It could add essential parameter and usage details without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema, one undocumented nested object parameter, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to specify server_json format, return structure, or error conditions, making the tool hard to use correctly.

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 has one required object parameter 'server_json' with 0% description coverage. The description provides no guidance on the parameter's structure, purpose, or expected content, leaving the agent without crucial context.

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 returns 'destructive-surface findings (LLM08)' and is a 'fast gate for CI'. It specifies the exact subset (LLM08) and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_owasp_findings' or 'check_supply_chain' by limiting scope.

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 mentions 'fast gate for CI' providing usage context, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. No exclusion criteria or comparison to sibling tools is given.

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