electron_audit_ipc_security

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior; the description confirms analysis purpose and adds transparency by listing specific security checks (e.g., raw ipcRenderer exposure, missing sender validation), going beyond annotation detail.

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: first states purpose, second details checks and instruction. No extraneous content, front-loaded with key 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?

With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states inputs and checks but omits output format (e.g., list of issues, pass/fail). For a security audit tool, this leaves some uncertainty about what the agent receives.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter (preloadCode, mainCode, rendererCode). The description reinforces that code content is needed but adds no new semantics 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 it analyzes preload scripts and main process IPC code for security issues, listing specific checks. This distinguishes it from siblings like electron_audit_security (general) and electron_lint_security (linting).

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 instructs to provide actual code content, implying usage context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like electron_audit_security or electron_lint_security.

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