Security Auditing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond confirming a read-only, idempotent operation. It fails to disclose that the tool requires SSH access (evident from schema but unmentioned) or to elaborate on side effects of scanning. The description does not add value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely short (5 words), which is concise but risks under-specification. It front-loads no critical details like supported actions or security implications. While brevity is valued, the lack of structure (no bullet points, no separation of concerns) reduces clarity.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown) and 8 parameters, the description covers almost nothing. It omits the tool's return values, SSH authentication requirements, and the specific actions it can perform. A complete description should at least hint at the action types (e.g., 'supports security_audit, compliance_check, etc.') to unify with the schema.

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 structured data already documents each parameter's meaning. The description 'Security scanning and compliance' adds no additional semantics for parameters. Baseline 3 applies since the description does not compensate or elaborate beyond the 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 'Security scanning and compliance' broadly matches the tool name and title, but it lacks a specific verb+resource combination. It vaguely groups scanning and compliance without defining distinct outcomes. Sibling tools (e.g., tm_files, tm_remote) imply a security focus, but the description does not differentiate this tool from potential security-related siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or preferred contexts. For a tool requiring SSH credentials and offering multiple action types, this omission hampers correct selection.

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