scan_with_checkov

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It states the tool analyzes IaC files for security misconfigurations and compliance violations, and mentions it returns a dictionary of results. However, it does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., file size, network access), whether it executes the scanned code, or that it is a read-only operation. This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-organized with sections for purpose, supported formats, args, and returns. The list of formats is essential and earns its place, though the second sentence restates the first line with minor detail, making it slightly verbose. Overall, it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does, supported formats, input arguments, and return type. It does not explain how results are structured beyond 'dictionary with scanned issues', but the output schema likely handles that. It could mention whether multiple formats can be scanned at once, but the schema implies single format per call.

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 has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by listing the accepted format types (e.g., terraform, cloudformation, kubernetes) and clarifying that 'code' is the content to analyze. This goes beyond the schema's brief 'etc.' and helps the agent select valid values.

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 scans Infrastructure as Code using Checkov for security issues, with a specific verb ('Scan'), a resource ('Infrastructure as Code'), and the tool name ('Checkov'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like scan_with_semgrep and scan_with_bandit by focusing on IaC formats and listing supported types.

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 by specifying that it analyzes Infrastructure as Code files and lists supported formats, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, such as 'use this for IaC scanning rather than semgrep'.

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