sast_missing_logging

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool detects but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies files, requires network access, or the format of its output (e.g., returns a list of findings). It is minimally transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, earning a top score.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits any mention of what the output looks like (e.g., list of issues, severity levels), which is important for an agent to interpret results. A score of 3 reflects that it covers the basic purpose but lacks return value context.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'path' parameter. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's description, which already indicates it's a directory path. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 detects specific missing security controls (try-catch, empty catch blocks, stack trace exposure, missing audit logging). It uses a specific verb ('detect') and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling SAST tools by focusing on logging/handling issues.

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 implies use for security analysis of source code, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Since no guidance on when not to use, it scores a 3.

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