Security Audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds nothing on top of that. It omits behaviorally significant facts: this tool connects to a remote host over SSH with credentials, and the audit is composed of scan/compliance phases selected by its parameters. No contradiction with annotations, but no added disclosure either.

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?

It is short, but the brevity is not earned: the second sentence is filler that adds no information, and the parenthetical "(tm_security)" is namespace noise. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient front-loading.

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?

For a tool with seven parameters that includes SSH username, identity file, and password reference — i.e., it authenticates to and acts on a remote host — the description says nothing about credential handling, required connectivity, or that the audit's breadth is driven by scope/standard/scan_type. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the invocation context is essentially undocumented.

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 every one of the seven parameters is documented in the schema itself, including the scope, standard, and scan_type enumerations. The description contributes no additional meaning (e.g., that scope/standard/scan_type select which sub-audits run), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 restates the tool name ("Security audit") and appends a vague restatement, "Security scanning and compliance," which does not say what operation is actually performed. It fails to distinguish this tool from close siblings tm_security_compliance_check, tm_security_vulnerability_scan, and tm_security_access_control_audit, which appear to be the specialized components this tool bundles.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. With three near-identical security siblings in the tool list, the absence of any routing guidance ("use this for a combined audit; use *_compliance_check for standard-only checks") is a real gap.

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