sqo_security_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful scope information (supported languages, vulnerability taxonomy) and a performance claim, but says nothing about whether the scan is read-only or writes files, what it returns (findings list? severity? file/line?), whether it requires an initialized workspace, or how large a repo is handled.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that puts the core purpose first, which is good, but it is padded with marketing artifacts such as '(v11.0 Hypernova)' and 'in <15ms!' that consume attention without helping an agent decide or invoke correctly.

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 one-parameter scanner with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is scanned but not what comes back or what side effects occur. An agent can decide to call it, but cannot predict the result shape or whether it is safe to run repeatedly.

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?

Only one parameter (workspace) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as the workspace root directory. The description adds no further meaning about scope, exclusions, or path handling, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (scans) and resource (SAST vulnerability scanner) and enumerates the exact languages and vulnerability classes (SQLi/CWE-89, CmdI/CWE-78, XSS/CWE-79, RCE/CWE-95) it covers. This clearly separates it from audit siblings like sqo_cache_audit, sqo_i18n_audit or sqo_perf_audit, which cover different domains.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling audit tools or when a security scan is the right choice over them. The agent must infer usage purely from the domain keywords.

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