Scan JavaScript security risks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds useful behavioral traits: 'deterministic', 'static', and 'heuristic', which signal that it does not execute code and produces repeatable results. It also lists specific risk categories. However, it does not explicitly state whether the scan is read-only or describe the return format, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Run a deterministic static heuristic scan') and enumerates specific risk categories. No filler or redundancy; 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 is simple (one parameter) but has no annotations and no output schema. The description explains what the tool scans for but does not mention what it returns (e.g., a report, list of findings, severity scores). For a security scan, return-value information is important, so the description is not fully complete.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name 'code' with length constraints (0% description coverage). The description implicitly indicates that 'code' is the JavaScript to be scanned, but adds no details about expected format, encoding, or how the scan uses the parameter beyond the obvious. It meets the baseline but does not compensate much for the schema's lack of description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('static heuristic scan for dynamic code, injection sinks, weak randomness, hard-coded credentials, and related risks'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like detect_obfuscation or detect_crypto, which target narrower concerns. The scope is explicit and actionable.

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 as a broad security scan for JavaScript code, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or complementary tools. The context is clear but lacks direct guidance.

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