Plan or install external security engines

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that install writes only to ~/.codeinspectus, verifies immutable pins/publisher provenance, and never modifies the target repository. It also clarifies that plan is offline. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it could mention network access requirements or failure modes.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. It efficiently covers the key behaviors without redundancy. The structure is clear and scannable.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, 3 actions, 3 components) and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the main behaviors, safety guarantees, and offline/online distinction. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'plan' returns or how decline works, but the output schema likely covers return values. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 all three parameters well. The description adds context by explaining the action parameter's behavior (plan is offline, install requires confirm_downloads=true, decline saves choice) and the components parameter (default all three). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, though the schema already covers the essentials.

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: inspect external-engine health, plan or install specific components (Opengrep/Gitleaks/Trivy) after confirmation, and save declined choices. It uses specific verbs (inspect, plan, install, save) and names the resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like scanning or reporting.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for external engine setup) and provides clear behavioral guidance: 'Plan is offline', 'Install writes only to ~/.codeinspectus', 'never modifies the target repository'. It also implies when not to use it (not for scanning or rule management, which are siblings). The action parameter description further clarifies when each action is appropriate.

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