run_sca_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose execution time, output format, error handling, side effects (e.g., file modifications if 'fix_vulnerabilities' is true), or security implications. For a tool that might modify files or run intensive scans, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (security scanning tool with potential file modifications) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., scan results, vulnerabilities list) or critical behaviors, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining what 'SCA scan' entails or how parameters interact). 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 action ('Execute') and resource ('SCA scan'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_sast_scan' or 'run_dast_scan' which would require explaining what distinguishes SCA from SAST/DAST, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_sast_scan' or 'generate_security_report'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing dependencies installed) or typical scenarios for SCA versus other security scans.

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