audit_quick_scan

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

Without annotations, the description takes full burden. It discloses the scope (only critical/high vulnerabilities) and speed, which are key behaviors. It does not mention read-only nature or other side effects, but for a scan tool this is acceptable.

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 very concise with two short, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value with no wasted content.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and usage context. It could mention output format, but not essential for a quick scan tool.

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 description doesn't need to add much. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for the two parameters (targetPath, language). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a quick scan focusing only on critical and high-level vulnerabilities. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_scan, which likely performs a full scan.

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 states it is suitable for quick checks in CI/CD pipelines, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it.

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