audit_dockerfile_security

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the types of issues flagged, which gives some insight into what the tool checks, but it does not mention side effects, permissions required, or whether the tool is read-only. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that gets straight to the point, listing key security checks. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could be slightly expanded to include parameter usage without losing efficiency.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description omits details about the return format. More critically, the complete lack of parameter explanations leaves a significant gap for a tool with two optional parameters that require explanation for proper usage.

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 description does not mention the two parameters (dockerfile_path, dockerfile_text) at all, and the input schema has no descriptions. The agent is left without guidance on how to provide the Dockerfile content, whether one parameter is preferred, or how they interact.

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?

Description clearly states the tool parses a Dockerfile and flags specific security issues (root user, unpinned images, secrets in ENV/ARG, network fetches). The action is specific and distinct from sibling tools like audit_code_no_network or bias_fairness_scan.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied by the tool name but not explicitly stated.

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