sast_path_traversal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states the tool performs an AST-scan (static analysis, non-destructive), but it does not disclose details such as output format, performance characteristics, or whether results include line numbers or file paths. The description is minimal.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('AST-scan for path traversal') and lists key functions. Every word is informative, with no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. However, it could benefit from mentioning the output format (e.g., list of vulnerable paths) or any limitations (e.g., only checks specific functions). Minor gaps prevent a 5.

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 coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'path' is described as 'Directory path containing source files to analyze'). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format, allowed values, or behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 explicitly states it is an AST-scan for path traversal vulnerabilities, listing specific functions (fs.readFile(), writeFile(), readdir(), unlink()) and the condition (user input without path.resolve() validation). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sast_code_execution or sast_command_injection.

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 detecting path traversal issues but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no exclusion criteria or hints about complementary tools.

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