generate_security_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (generates comprehensive security reports, saves to Markdown, prioritizes by severity) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like execution time, resource requirements, error handling, or whether it modifies the project. It adds useful context about the report format and prioritization but misses operational details.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second specifies content areas, and the third describes output characteristics. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the 'what' from the 'how' aspects.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage for a tool that generates reports. It explains what the tool produces (comprehensive security report in Markdown with prioritization) but doesn't describe the return value format or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, it meets minimum requirements but could benefit from more operational context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions the report format and content but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, relationships, or constraints beyond the structured 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 purpose with specific verbs ('Genera un reporte completo de seguridad') and resources ('vulnerabilidades en dependencias, vulnerabilidades en código fuente y secrets expuestos'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual scan types. It specifies the output format ('Markdown') and prioritization method ('priorizadas por severidad'), making it distinct from more targeted scanning tools.

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 implies when to use this tool (for comprehensive security reports combining multiple scan types) versus siblings (which handle specific vulnerability types), but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. It provides clear context about generating complete reports but lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance or named alternative tools.

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