scan_security_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only vs. mutation, permission requirements, or side effects. It only lists what patterns are detected, leaving safety and operational context unclear.

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 relatively concise, using a brief sentence and a bullet-like list to enumerate detected patterns. It front-loads purpose and avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), return values are partially covered. However, the description omits prerequisites, limitations (e.g., false positive rates), and whether the scan is static or dynamic, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, the description adds minimal value by mentioning 'codebase,' implying the path is a codebase location. It does not specify accepted formats or constraints, so it partially compensates but remains basic.

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 scans a codebase for OWASP security antipatterns and lists specific vulnerability types. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_codebase, scan_code_quality, and scan_secrets by focusing explicitly on security vulnerabilities.

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 says 'Use this when asked about security vulnerabilities or OWASP compliance,' providing explicit usage context. It does not mention when not to use, but the sibling list implies boundaries.

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