Security Scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it emphasizes 'false-positive filtering' indicating results are curated, and lists the scan categories, which informs the agent of the tool's thoroughness and focus. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Deep security scan') and then lists the specific vulnerability categories. It avoids fluff and all content is informative. While the list is long, it is justified for a security scan tool. The structure is efficient and effective.

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 no output schema, the description covers what the tool scans but does not specify the return format (e.g., whether it outputs a report, a list of findings, or a pass/fail result). Since there is no output schema, this missing detail could affect an agent's expectation of the tool's response. The description is reasonably complete but leaves this important gap.

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 100% for the single parameter 'path', and the schema already describes it as the absolute path to the repository root. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as accepted formats or edge cases. Given the baseline of 3 when schema fully documents parameters, this score 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 the tool performs a deep security scan and enumerates specific vulnerability categories (secrets, injection, XSS, SQLi, etc.). It conveys the verb (scan) and resource (repository), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from security-focused siblings like semgrep_scan or secret_scan, relying on the vulnerability list to imply distinction.

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 implies usage for a thorough security review with false-positive filtering, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance nor name alternatives. An agent could infer this is the default deep-scan tool, but there is no direct routing like 'for more specific scans use X'. This leaves the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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