run_checkov

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Run checkov', which implies execution but does not indicate if the tool is read-only, what side effects occur (e.g., file modifications, network calls), required permissions, or output format. This omission severely limits an agent's ability to gauge safety and side effects.

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 extremely short at one sentence, but it sacrifices useful context such as the purpose of Checkov or output behavior. It is concise but not optimally informative, as it fails to elaborate on critical details that would aid tool selection and invocation.

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 complexity of the tool (3 parameters, multiple sibling scanners, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, success/failure signals, or how it fits with other Terraform analysis tools. The description is too minimal to fully guide an agent in using the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (path, extraArgs, timeoutMs). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already provides sufficient parameter details.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'checkov over a Terraform directory', which directly conveys the tool's action. However, it does not elaborate on what Checkov does or how it differs from sibling tools like tflint or trivy, leaving some ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the tool.

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 such as run_tflint, run_trivy, or run_kics. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where it is preferred over other security scanners.

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