Summarize security context

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context on top: it returns JSON, runs locally, requires SKYLOS_API_KEY or fails authentication, and without a key only `analyze` works at 5 calls/day. That auth/rate-limit/fallback disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the when-to-use line, then appends the auth caveat. The caveat paragraph is long (API key, 5 calls/day, two CLI commands) but each element is actionable for an agent deciding whether the call will succeed, so it largely earns its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the description correctly just notes 'Returns JSON'. With one fully documented parameter plus annotations and a rich auth/alternatives section, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; only the sibling boundaries (versus security_scan) remain unaddressed.

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% and the schema already explains that `path` is the project directory and how relative paths resolve. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies for a single fully-documented param.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Summarize a project's security setup') and enumerates exactly what is summarized: frameworks, auth decorators/middleware, headers, rate limiting, validation, Skylos policy file. That is far more specific than its siblings, but it never contrasts itself with closely-related siblings such as security_scan, quality_check or analyze, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Gives a clear use condition: 'Use it before reviewing or writing security-sensitive code to learn the project's conventions.' It also tells the agent when the tool is unusable (no SKYLOS_API_KEY) and what still works instead ('analyze', or the local CLI). It does not, however, explain when to prefer security_scan or the other scan tools over this one.

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