_mcp_generate_security_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions output format but not side effects, required data state, or whether it modifies anything. No disclosure about file creation, access rights, or how optional PDF is triggered.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no superfluous words. Perfectly concise for stating the core purpose.

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?

Lacks context: no explanation of the 'findings' parameter, no description of report content sections, and no mention of how optional PDF is controlled. With many sibling tools, more context is needed for correct selection.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters. The 'findings' parameter is ambiguous (anyOf object or null) with no guidance on structure. 'project_id' is required but not described.

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 aggregates security audit results into a Markdown report with optional PDF. It distinguishes from similar generate_* tools by specifying 'security audit results', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling audit tools like audit_code_no_network.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., _mcp_generate_performance_report or running individual audit tools). The description implies usage after security audits, but does not state prerequisites or exclude inappropriate scenarios.

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