scan_config

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so no safety concerns. The description adds the behavioral context of scanning for security issues but does not detail what happens with large scans or auth requirements, which is acceptable given the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence with 19 words, front-loaded with the key action 'scan Infrastructure-as-Code files' and supported formats. No unnecessary information.

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?

For a scanning tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and scope. It could optionally mention output specifics, but is sufficiently 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 input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond listing supported formats that relate to the 'path' parameter.

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 scans Infrastructure-as-Code files for misconfigurations and security issues, listing supported formats like Terraform, Dockerfile, and Kubernetes manifests. This distinguishes it from sibling scanning tools like scan_filesystem and scan_image.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as scan_filesystem or scan_repository. The description lists supported formats but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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