security.scan_source

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool does not execute target code and produces deterministic signals. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, output format, or what 'signals' concretely are.

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 entire description is one sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds the essential 'without running target code' qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what inputs should be provided, what 'platform configuration' includes, what the scan returns, or how results might feed into sibling tools like security.compare_scans or security.release_gate.

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% and the description provides no information about 'paths' or 'maxFiles'. The agent is left to infer the meaning of both parameters entirely from their names, with no guidance on expected formats, constraints, or semantics.

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 names a specific action ('scan'), a concrete resource ('mobile source and platform configuration'), and a distinguishing qualifier ('without running target code'). This clearly differentiates it from dynamic runtime and verification siblings like appium.assert_visible or device.pull_logs.

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 'without running target code' implies this is for static analysis and not for runtime behavior, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives like security.compare_scans or security.release_gate. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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