bastion__security

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningfully: it explains that it detects definition drift ('rug pull'), poisoning heuristics, and cross-server shadowing — real behavioral content rather than a restatement of the name. It stops short of stating that it is strictly read-only and non-mutating, which would have closed the loop.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon introducing the three report categories — dense but readable, and no filler. The nested parenthetical asides make it slightly clunky, but every clause maps to a distinct output dimension.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the agent receives; it does so by naming the three classes of findings. It does not describe the shape or granularity of the result (per-tool entries, severity levels, empty-state behavior), leaving a modest 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline this lands at 4. No parameter-related omissions exist to penalize.

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 ('Report') and a precise resource ('the security state of every proxied tool'), then enumerates the three findings it produces: definition drift/rug pull, poisoning heuristics, and name shadowing. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bastion__status and bastion__compliance.

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 security-audit framing implies when to call it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over bastion__status or bastion__compliance, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. must tools be proxied already). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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