security_scan

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns every finding with rule id, message, location, and severity but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or performance considerations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with a clear purpose statement and a dedicated Args section. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers return values (rule id, message, location, severity) and usage context. It meets the needs for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only parameter `path` is explained as 'File or directory to scan (absolute, or relative to the project),' adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description effectively compensates.

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 explicitly states the tool scans Kotlin/JVM code for security issues using a 216-rule analyzer. It identifies the resource (Kotlin/JVM code) and action (scan for security issues), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like review_diff and secure_pattern.

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 advises to point the tool at a file or directory and use it to fix issues 'while writing, not after.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives but provides clear context for when it is appropriate.

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