owasp_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds important behavioral context: it is read-only, does not persist findings, uses direct_evidence/weak_signal honesty strength, and always returns a full 10-category coverage section. No contradictions.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. Well-structured.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and advisory nature. However, missing parameter explanations for 6 of 8 parameters leave gaps in completeness.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only covers categories and acknowledgeAdvisory. It does not explain freshen, maxFiles, projectId, projectRef, maxPerSection, or includeFullResults. This is a significant gap.

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 is for OWASP Top 10 (2025) review of TS/JS files, listing specific categories and explicitly naming those it does not check. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tenant_leak_audit.

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 explicit usage guidance: it is advisory/heuristic, requires acknowledgeAdvisory:true, and is not a replacement for dedicated SAST/SCA. It does not mention alternative tools but gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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