arvan_iac_checkov

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that scanning is performed with Checkov and framework can narrow the scan, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, and the second sentence adds optional parameter detail. No unnecessary information.

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 no output schema and three optional parameters, the description explains the tool's purpose and one parameter. However, it omits that at least one of files/directory is likely required, and does not hint at the return format or results. Adequate but with gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'framework' parameter with examples, but fails to describe 'files' and 'directory' parameters, which are essential for specifying target IaC. This partial coverage is insufficient.

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 explicitly states 'Scan IaC for misconfigurations & security issues with Checkov', clearly identifying the action (scan), resource (IaC), and tool (Checkov). This distinguishes it from other IaC tools like tflint or tfsec among siblings.

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 implies usage for scanning IaC with optional framework narrowing, but it does not provide guidance on when to use Checkov versus other IaC tools (e.g., tflint, tfsec). No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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