ps_security_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the return format (findings classified by severity), it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a security scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Both sentences earn their place by stating the action and return format, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from output details). No wasted words, but minor room for improvement.

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 the complexity of security scanning, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, performance, or error conditions, nor does it explain the return structure beyond severity levels. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (content and patterns). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of pattern IDs or content format expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 tool's purpose: scanning code content for security vulnerabilities and returning classified findings. It specifies both the action (scan) and resource (code content), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ps_validate or ps_security_config, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like ps_validate, ps_security_config, and ps_security_gate, there's no indication of how this security scan differs or when it's the appropriate choice, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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