generate_security_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'produces a structured Markdown report with executive summary, STRIDE threat model, compliance notes, and prioritized recommendations,' which gives valuable insight into the output. However, it does not mention whether the report is returned directly, saved to a file, or how it handles malformed JSON input, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise—just two sentences—with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the additional breakdown of the report's contents in the second. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 that the tool has only two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand its role. It could have mentioned more about the expected input format or error behavior, but the existing detail about the report contents is enough for basic invocation. The output schema presumably covers return values.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what is in the schema. For example, the schema details that 'scan_results' is a JSON string from specific scan tools, and the description merely references 'one or more security scans.' This matches the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 what the tool does: 'Generate a SECURITY.md report from scan results.' The verb 'generate' and resource 'SECURITY.md report' are specific, and the tool is clearly distinguished from sibling scanning tools like scan_with_checkov and scan_with_semgrep by focusing on report generation rather than scanning.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Takes output from one or more security scans.' This implies it should be used after scanning, and since no other report-generation siblings exist, the usage is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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