security.compare_scans

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by calling the scan 'deterministic' and framing the operation as a re-run-and-compare, but it does not disclose side effects, persistence, permissions, or what the comparison result looks like.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and timing are immediately visible.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the tool needs the description to tie inputs to the workflow and clarify what the comparison produces. It does not, leaving an agent uncertain about required inputs and expected output semantics.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it never names paths, maxFiles, or baselinePath. 'Baseline report' hints at baselinePath and 'source scan' hints at paths, but the parameters' exact meanings and constraints are largely unexplained.

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 states a clear action ('Re-run the deterministic source scan') and a clear object ('compare it with a baseline report'), so an agent can tell this tool is about scan comparison after fixes. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling like security.scan_source, so differentiation remains implicit.

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 phrase 'after fixes' gives meaningful context for when this tool is appropriate. However, the description does not explain when to prefer it over alternatives such as security.scan_source or security.release_gate, and it gives no exclusions or workflow placement.

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