arvan_security_grype

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false). The description implies a non-destructive read operation (scanning), which is reasonable but not explicit. It does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or performance impacts. The transparency is average.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the primary action and tool name. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter guidance without losing 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 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not specify how to input parameters (e.g., image tag format, directory path), what the output looks like, or how the tool behaves. It is incomplete for an effective agent invocation.

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%, meaning parameter definitions lack explanatory text. The description only mentions 'container image or directory' but does not explain how the three parameters (image, files, directory) relate or should be used. An agent cannot determine which parameter to provide without additional context.

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's purpose: scanning a container image or directory for vulnerabilities using grype. It uses a specific verb 'scan' and identifies the resource type, distinguishing it from sibling security tools like arvan_security_sast (static analysis) and arvan_security_scan_image (likely uses a different scanner).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., arvan_security_scan_vulnerabilities) would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage context from the name alone.

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