pci_scan_codebase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. 'Scan' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether the scan runs locally, sends code to an external service (especially given the api_key parameter), or produces a report. It also does not state whether it modifies files, requires network access, or has side effects.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler, which is good. However, it is closer to a title than a full tool description and omits important details about behavior and parameters, so the brevity comes at too high a cost.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, this description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns, whether a report is generated, how the api_key is used, or what PCI-DSS issue categories and flagged. An agent has enough to guess the purpose but not enough to call the tool confidently.

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 documents 'directory' and the description reinforces it as 'codebase', but the api_key parameter is entirely unexplained. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented api_key field but does not. An agent cannot tell why the api_key is needed or whether it is required for the scan to succeed.

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 specific action (scan) on a specific resource (codebase) for a specific standard (PCI-DSS issues). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pci_generate_checklist and pci_generate_report, which generate rather than scan. However, it does not specify what kinds of issues are detected or what the scan covers beyond the codebase.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus related scanning tools such as iac_scan_terraform, env_scan_secrets, gdpr_scan_pii, or owasp_scan_top10. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about whether this is the right tool for a full PCI-DSS audit or only for code-level checks.

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