scan_content

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: output format ('findings with AVE IDs, severity, OWASP MCP categories, and links to full remediation guidance'), a special feature ('toxic flows where two findings combine into a complete attack chain'), and inferred non-destructiveness of a scan. This is comprehensive.

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 three sentences, well-structured with the main purpose first, then usage guidance, then output details. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 that the tool has an output schema (which already describes return values), the description covers purpose, usage context, and special behaviors (toxic flows) sufficiently. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for the two parameters 'content' and 'label'. The description does not explain parameter formats, defaults, or examples.

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 verb 'scan', the resource 'raw text content', and the specific purpose 'for AVE security vulnerabilities'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_conformance or scan_server_card by focusing on text content scanning.

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 explicitly lists use cases: 'skill file content, system prompts, MCP tool descriptions, or any agentic AI component'. It implies a pre-check use case ('before using it'), but does not mention when not to use or provide explicit alternatives among siblings.

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