security_scan

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It transparently describes the scanning process, graph-aware severity elevation, and output format. No contradictions exist since there are no annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently lists checks and explains key features without unnecessary verbosity, though a slightly more concise phrasing could be possible.

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 tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately informs about inputs and expected outputs (ranked findings with fixes). It fits well among sibling tools, providing enough context for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds value beyond schema by explaining the effect of parameters (e.g., 'Use --target for single-file scan' and graph-aware behavior). This enhances agent understanding of parameter usage.

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 it scans for security vulnerabilities using deterministic checks and graph-aware severity scoring. It lists specific vulnerability classes and distinguishes from siblings by noting graph-aware severity elevation from MCP tools like connect_repo.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (security scanning) and hints at its unique graph-aware severity feature. However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools for other analysis tasks.

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