get_supported_formats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool 'returns information,' implying a non-mutating, read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, dependencies, or the exact structure of the returned dictionary beyond a high-level description.

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 first and second sentences are redundant ('Get list of supported formats and languages' vs. 'returns information about what file formats and programming languages are supported'). The Returns section adds minimal new info. This could be condensed to one sentence, resulting in wasted words.

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, parameterless getter, the description is sufficient: it explains the purpose and return type. The output schema is noted as present, so the description does not need to enumerate every field. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than inputs, and no parameter clarification is needed.

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 a specific verb ('Get list') and resource ('supported formats and languages for all security scanning tools'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling scan tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: this appears to be a pre-scan information tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., 'before scanning, use this to check compatibility') or mention alternatives/exclusions. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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