sql_detect_injection

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'scan'. It does not disclose whether the scan is read-only, whether it requires a Pro/Enterprise API key, what it returns, or whether it sends code to an external service.

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 with no wasteful wording and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the lack of additional behavior or context makes it quite terse.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and no return-value documentation, the description is incomplete for an agent to know what happens after calling the tool. It only supports the bare action of passing a directory and receiving unspecified results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema; 'codebase' loosely maps to 'directory', but no extra guidance is provided for the api_key parameter or the expected directory format.

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 names a clear verb ('Scan'), resource ('codebase'), and target ('SQL injection vulnerabilities'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like sql_audit_report or sql_parameterize_queries, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and siblings.

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