arvan_security_available_tools

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description adds the fact that it reports paths. No contradictions. The description provides minimal additional behavioral context beyond annotations, which is acceptable.

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?

Single sentence, clear and front-loaded. Every word adds value. No extraneous information. Perfect conciseness.

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 simplicity (no parameters, read-only), the description is complete enough. It could optionally mention output format or that paths are absolute, but not necessary. The absence of an output schema is fine as the description implies the output content. Score reflects near-completeness with minor room for enhancement.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameters. The description does not need to add parameter information. This score is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reports which security scanners are installed and their paths. The verb 'Report' and resource 'security scanners' make the purpose explicit. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like arvan_security_audit_security_groups which perform different security-related actions.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given it's a simple reporting tool with no parameters, usage is implicit. For a read-only listing tool, this is minimally adequate but lacks explicit context or exclusion of other tools.

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