security-analyst

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

The description implies a read-only analysis role, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not elaborate on what the tool returns or any side effects beyond the annotation, so it adds limited additional behavioral disclosure.

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 concise at two sentences, with the first sentence defining the role and the second listing specific use cases. Every word serves a purpose without 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?

Despite the readOnlyHint, the description lacks details about the tool's output, parameter behavior, or examples. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for correct use.

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 input schema has 6 parameters with zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning or usage, forcing the agent to infer from parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 defines the tool as a security engineer for threat modeling and vulnerability assessment. It provides specific use cases like auth/authorization changes and untrusted input handling, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like code-reviewer or debugger.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: for auth/authorization changes, untrusted input, new endpoints, or a security audit. It does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the given context is clear and actionable.

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