code_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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (static analysis for specific vulnerabilities) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as execution time, output format, error handling, or any side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, starting with the core action and resource, followed by a concise list of detected risks. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 complexity (static analysis with multiple vulnerability checks) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and scope but misses critical behavioral and output details. However, it does provide enough context for basic usage, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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') with its type and description. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it does not mention the parameter or elaborate on its usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Run static pattern analysis') and resources ('across all PHP source files'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by listing the specific vulnerability types it detects (SQL injection, RCE risks, etc.), which none of the sibling tools explicitly mention in their names or likely purposes.

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 for scanning PHP files in a Laravel project (based on the input schema), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'blade_scan' or 'full_audit'. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and description alone.

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