validate_security_compliance

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions what violations are checked but omits whether it is read-only, what happens on errors, if files are modified, or the format of the output. This is insufficient for an AI agent to predict side effects.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and specific checks, then cite the security requirements document. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what is scanned and why. However, it lacks details on output format, recursion behavior, or performance implications, which could affect an agent's decision 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?

The schema already describes 'path' as 'Absolute path to the plugin root' with 100% coverage. The tool description reinforces that it scans plugin PHP files, but adds no new semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Scan' and clearly lists the exact security violations checked (nonce, capability, unescaped output, raw SQL). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'validate_plugin_structure' by focusing on security compliance.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'detect_framework_violations' or 'validate_hook_usage'. The context signals and sibling list show many validation tools, but the description does not help the agent choose.

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