security_scan

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

Annotations cover key traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), but the description adds value by specifying the types of injection patterns scanned (e.g., tautologies, UNION attacks), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavioral scope beyond the annotations. No contradiction 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function and lists specific injection patterns without unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 (security scanning), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and scan targets but lacks details on output format, error handling, or limitations, which could aid the agent in using it effectively.

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 parameter 'sql' is well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic context by implying the SQL is scanned for injection patterns, but this is largely redundant with the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('SQL'), and it distinguishes from siblings by specifying the focus on 'injection patterns' (e.g., tautologies, UNION attacks) rather than general analysis, formatting, or validation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_sql' or 'validate_sql'. It lists injection patterns but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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