arvan_security_audit_security_groups

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the specific risky checks (world-open on sensitive ports) and the return of severity-graded findings. Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, so the description enhances transparency.

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 composed of three succinct, well-structured sentences. Each sentence adds value: first states the purpose, second details the scope, third explains the output. 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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output (findings with severity) for a read-only audit tool with annotations. However, it lacks details about the return format or how findings are structured, which could be important for an agent. Overall, it is mostly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema defines only one optional parameter (region) with no description, and the tool description does not mention or explain this parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify what 'region' does, leaving the agent to guess.

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 audits security groups for risky world-open ingress rules, specifying the exact vulnerability it checks (0.0.0.0/0 or ::/0 on sensitive ports). This is distinct from sibling tools like 'arvan_list_security_groups' which only list groups.

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 the tool should be used to audit for risky rules, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tool names suggest alternatives, but the description lacks direct guidance.

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