check_injection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool scans code without side effects, supports multiple languages, has rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr pro), and returns a specific output structure. No contradictions with annotations.

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 packed with useful information (purpose, language support, companion tools, rate limits, output) but remains fairly concise. It could be slightly more structured, but front-loads key info.

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 (multi-language scanner), rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and return format. It is complete enough for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the parameters. The description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'single file or code snippet' for code, language choices). Baseline 3 is appropriate as description does not significantly enhance beyond 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's purpose: scanning source code for injection vulnerabilities, listing specific types (SQL injection, command injection, path traversal). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like check_secrets and check_dependencies by their different purposes.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use to detect input-handling bugs; for secrets use check_secrets.' It also lists companion tools. However, it doesn't specify when not to use it beyond that, or any prerequisites or limitations.

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