appknox_analyses

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that the tool is a list operation and requires a file_id, which is a useful dependency. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, error behavior, or response format. Given the simplicity of the tool, the missing transparency is a minor gap.

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 and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and follows with a single critical dependency in the second. No superfluous information or repetition of schema details is present.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, parameter, and dependency. It does not detail the return structure (e.g., fields of each vulnerability), but since no output schema exists, the description could have elaborated slightly. However, for a straightforward list operation, the provided context is largely sufficient.

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 already describes file_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining where to obtain the parameter: 'which can be obtained from appknox_files.' This extra guidance helps the agent source the required input correctly.

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 function: 'List all security analysis results (vulnerabilities) for a specific file.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('security analysis results') and scope ('for a specific file'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling tool 'appknox_vulnerability', which likely focuses on individual vulnerabilities.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Requires file_id which can be obtained from appknox_files.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (after obtaining file_id) and where to get the required parameter. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for a simple list operation.

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