arvan_security_scan_vulnerabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds that it uses Trivy and scans for specific issues, but goes no further in disclosing behavioral traits like runtime duration or required permissions. This is adequate but not enhanced beyond annotations.

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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It front-loads the action and key details without any fluff.

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?

Despite the simplicity of the tool, the description omits expected context: no output schema, no parameter descriptions, no guidance on selecting between multiple optional parameters, and no note on how results are returned. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional knowledge.

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%. The description mentions scanning a filesystem, implying 'directory' is the path, but it does not explain the 'files' parameter (an object with additionalProperties). This lack of explanation leaves ambiguity, especially with two optional parameters where one is an object.

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 verb 'scan', the resource 'filesystem', and the specific scan types (vulns, secrets, misconfig) using Trivy. It distinguishes itself from siblings like arvan_security_scan_image by specifying 'filesystem' and 'trivy fs'.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus similar tools. It does not provide explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a security scanning tool with many siblings, this omission is significant.

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