Scan code for security issues

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical context: zero network egress, no code writes, and output format (CWE-keyed with fix recommendations). This goes beyond annotations to fully inform the agent.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. Purpose is first, then engines and output, then safety guarantees. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters with enums, output schema exists) and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, output, and safety comprehensively. It provides enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 covers all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the bundles engines and output type, which helps understand parameters like 'scanners' (which enums) and 'include_compliance'. It provides context 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 clearly states the tool 'run[s] a full local security scan of a path' and enumerates the specific engines (Opengrep SAST, Gitleaks secrets, Trivy SCA/IaC/license, AI checks), making the purpose unmistakable. It differentiates from siblings like codeinspectus_compliance_report or codeinspectus_generate_sbom by focusing on a comprehensive scan.

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 implies usage for security scanning and highlights safety ('Fully offline', 'Never writes'), which guides when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparisons to sibling tools like codeinspectus_rescan or codeinspectus_list_rules.

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