Infrastructure Scan (AWS/IaC)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds context about the scanning scope and Trivy but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey. It is consistent with annotations, showing no contradiction.

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 two sentences with no waste: the first front-loads the core purpose and technology, the second lists concrete examples. Every element earns its place without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and strong annotations, the description adequately conveys what it scans and where to point it. However, it does not describe the output format or any operational prerequisites, though these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema's only parameter, 'path', is fully described as 'Absolute path to the repository root'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies given 100% schema description coverage.

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 a specific verb (scanning) and resource (infrastructure-as-code) across AWS, Azure, GCP, Kubernetes, and Docker, and lists concrete misconfiguration types like public S3 buckets and wildcard IAM policies. This distinguishes it from sibling scanners like secret_scan and cve_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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other security scanners, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent would have to infer usage from the description alone.

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