sourcery_security_snapshot

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return composition (counts plus first page of active issues), which is useful, but says nothing about read-only nature, pagination continuation beyond 'first page', how filters narrow results, or auth requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing parameter and behavioral detail.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only partially sufficient: return contents are sketched but parameter behavior and pagination are absent, so an agent cannot call it confidently with filters.

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 0% and the description never mentions limit, issue_types, or repository_ids. The phrase 'first page' faintly hints at a limit but gives no name, default, or interaction semantics, leaving all three parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific noun ('triage overview') and details the payload ('counts by status/severity plus the first page of active issues'), so the agent knows what it gets back. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like sourcery_get_security_counts or sourcery_list_findings, which it appears to combine.

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?

'Triage overview' implies a first-pass survey use case, giving implicit guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of when to prefer the dedicated counts or findings tools, so routing remains inferential.

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