report_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does mention the optional save_html side effect, but it does not state whether the source file is modified, any permission requirements, or other operational constraints. The core security-review behavior is only implicit.

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 concise and well-structured, opening with the main purpose and then listing parameters in a clear format. Every sentence serves a purpose 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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: purpose and argument meanings. It lacks usage context, but the availability of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, making it sufficiently complete.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, but the description compensates thoroughly by defining path as 'local source file to review' and save_html as 'optional path for the styled HTML report.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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's function: 'Security-review a source file and produce a polished report (Markdown + optional HTML).' It identifies a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like review_file or report, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 guidance on when to use report_source versus other tools such as review_file, review_code, or report. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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