check_security

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does (validation), it doesn't describe key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only analysis, what permissions might be required, how results are returned, or any rate limits. For a security analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two efficient sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and scope. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by bullet-pointing the security checks).

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 of security validation and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a report, vulnerabilities list), how errors are handled, or any behavioral context. For a tool with no structured output and zero annotations, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 the single parameter ('code') with its description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format requirements or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('perform security-focused validation') and resource ('code'), and lists the types of security issues checked (XSS vulnerabilities, SQL injection risks, insecure functions). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'validate_code' or 'explain_rule', which might have overlapping functionality.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate compared to sibling tools like 'validate_code' or 'list_rules', or any exclusions for its use. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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