scan_jar_security

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that analysis is static-only ('the file is never executed'), which is critical safety info. Also describes output structure and size constraints. Fully transparent.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: main action, output description, use case, and constraints. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the most important 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?

No output schema, but description explains the structured findings in enough detail. Covers purpose, usage context, constraints, and output format. Agent can fully understand what the tool does and what to expect without needing additional information.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra context beyond the schema, e.g., explaining license key fallback to environment variable and size cap details. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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?

Starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Run jar.tools' static security scan on a local .jar/.zip or .class file.' No sibling tools listed, so no confusion. Directly states the tool's core function.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Useful for auditing a dependency before adding it to a build, or investigating a suspicious plugin/mod.' Also notes size limits and license upgrade, but does not explicitly tell when not to use it. Still, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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