apisec_checks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Return a security test checklist' without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, network calls, or whether the result is static or dynamically generated. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence with zero filler. It is front-loaded with the action ('Return') and resource ('security test checklist'). Every word earns its place.

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 simple with one parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description conveys the core purpose but does not clarify what the checklist contains or its return structure. Given the absence of an output schema, some expectation-setting would help, but the minimal complexity keeps this at a borderline adequate level.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (baseUrl: 'API base URL'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('a security test checklist for an API'). It is distinct enough from sibling names like apisec_status and apisec_scan_spec, though it does not explicitly differentiate them. The purpose is identifiable without opening the schema.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (apisec_status, apisec_scan_spec). No context, prerequisites, or recommended use cases are provided. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and generic description.

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