appknox_cicheck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior that the tool fails when vulnerabilities above the threshold are found, which is important. However, it does not explain what happens on success, what the return format is, or any other side effects, leaving gaps beyond this critical fail condition.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: the first states the core action, the second explains the failure condition, and the third lists the required parameters. It is front-loaded and contains zero fluff.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description needs to cover return behavior. It does mention the fail condition but does not specify what a successful call returns or whether a list of vulnerabilities is included. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate gap in completeness.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by noting that file_id comes from appknox_files, which helps source the parameter, but it does not add further semantics for risk_threshold or timeout_minutes beyond what the schema already provides.

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 checks for vulnerabilities based on a risk threshold and fails if vulnerabilities above the threshold are found. This specific behavior and the mention of requiring a file ID from appknox_files helps distinguish it from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 prerequisite by stating it requires file_id from appknox_files, implying the file must exist. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like appknox_dastcheck, nor does it mention any conditions under which it should not be used.

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