Security Improvement Plan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions response modes and token counts, but fails to state whether the tool has side effects, requires specific permissions, or if it is read-only. Missing critical context for safe invocation.

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?

Very concise: two sentences with clear structure. Front-loaded with purpose, then response mode guidance. No wasted words.

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?

While the description covers response modes well, it lacks information about output format (no output schema) and prerequisites (e.g., need prior analysis). Given no output schema and 4 params, more context would be helpful for agent completion.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds token count guidance for response_mode, but does not significantly enhance other parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Generate security improvement recommendations' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_security_risks by focusing on generating a plan rather than analyzing risks.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each response mode ('minimal' for simple questions, 'standard' for summary, 'detailed' for full roadmap). However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites.

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