detect_security_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does list exact scan areas (e.g., AWS/Stripe/GitHub/JWT secrets, injection types) which adds valuable context about coverage. However, it omits side effects, return format, whether it modifies files, required permissions, or runtime behavior, leaving significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and provides a compact, scannable list of detection categories. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with two parameters, one enum, and no output schema. The description fails to explain return value format, how platform influences scanning, or any preconditions/postconditions. With no annotations or output schema, the description is too incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret the tool's results.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters 'platform' or 'projectPath'. The enum values for platform are unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set these parameters or why they matter.

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 is a 'Stand-alone security scanner' and enumerates specific vulnerability categories (hardcoded secrets, SQL/XSS/SSRF/eval injection, weak crypto, CORS misconfig, cookie flags, yaml.load). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_memory_leaks or detect_logic_errors.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'security scanner' label, implying it should be used when security issues need to be identified. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives, only the word 'stand-alone' hints at independence from other pipeline steps.

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