Semgrep 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 'CWE mapping' as a behavioral trait, which is useful, but it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., Semgrep installation), output format, or performance implications. The added value is modest relative to the annotation coverage.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then provides the config list. There is no fluff, and every word serves function. This is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema and complex scanning behavior, the description omits crucial details: what the tool returns (results, severity, CWE identifiers), any dependencies, and how to interpret outputs. The config list is helpful but insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool in a real workflow.

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 50% (only 'path' is described). The description compensates for the undocumented 'config' parameter by listing acceptable values (p/owasp-top-ten, etc.), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain what 'auto' means or how to specify multiple configs, leaving some ambiguity.

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 states 'Semgrep rule-pack scanning with CWE mapping' which clearly identifies the tool's verb and resource. It lists specific configuration names, distinguishing it from generic scanning tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like security_scan or secret_scan, leaving some ambiguity about which scanner to choose.

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 alternatives. Sibling tools such as security_scan, secret_scan, and cve_scan exist, but no filters or conditions are given to select this one. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and config list.

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