blade_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool detects (unescaped output, raw user input, unsafe PHP echo) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are returned, or if it modifies files. For a security scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and detection scope without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 moderate complexity (security scanning with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers what the tool does and what it detects but misses behavioral context like result format, error handling, or integration with siblings. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with no structured safety or output information.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'path' as an absolute path to the Laravel project. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('scan', 'detects') and resources ('Laravel Blade templates in resources/views/'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it focuses on XSS vulnerabilities in Blade templates rather than general code scanning or other audit types.

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 context (scanning for XSS vulnerabilities in Laravel Blade templates) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'code_scan' or 'full_audit'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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