container_security_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a report-generation operation and flags the 'Pro feature' gating, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the api_key is required, what the report covers, whether any files are modified, or how results are returned.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and object are front-loaded, and the 'Pro feature' caveat is compactly included. Every word earns its place.

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 two parameters, an undocumented api_key, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves the agent without information about report contents, return format, entitlement handling, or how this tool differs from the many container/security sibling tools. The 'Pro feature' note is the only extra 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 description mentions no parameters and adds no meaning beyond the schema. Only 'directory' has schema documentation, while 'api_key' is left undocumented, and the description does not clarify its role. With 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the missing api_key semantics but does not.

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 states a clear verb ('Generate'), a specific resource ('container security report'), and a scope qualifier ('comprehensive'). It is distinguishable from more targeted sibling tools like container_audit_dockerfile or container_scan_compose because it implies an aggregated report rather than a narrow scan, though it does not explicitly define those boundaries.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the many security-focused siblings such as container_audit_dockerfile, container_scan_compose, or iac_scan_docker. The phrase 'Pro feature' hints at an entitlement constraint, but no use-case context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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