scan_code_vulnerabilities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the scanning behavior and return format (vulnerabilities with location and solutions), but lacks details on performance, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. It adequately covers the core operation but misses operational context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action, target, examples, and output. Every element earns its place with no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 a code vulnerability scanner with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and output format but lacks details on error cases, performance expectations, or integration context. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps for operational use.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('escanea', 'buscando') and resources ('código fuente del proyecto'), listing concrete vulnerability patterns (XSS, eval(), innerHTML, tokens). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on code patterns rather than dependencies, secrets, or report generation.

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 usage for scanning source code for specific vulnerability patterns, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_dependencies or scan_secrets. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts is provided.

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