guardvibe

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses specific security checks (CVE-2025-59536, shell injection, overly permissive access) and target file patterns. However, lacks explicit read-only safety declaration, output structure details, or error behavior since no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads action, target, and threat model. Second sentence provides usage timing. 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?

Strong threat context (specific CVE, attack patterns) compensates partially for lack of annotations. Would benefit from output description given no output schema exists, but parameter coverage is complete and purpose is unambiguous for a security scanning tool.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds valuable context by enumerating specific config file paths (.claude/settings.json, etc.), clarifying what the 'path' parameter should contain and what subpaths the tool searches within the project root.

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?

Specific verb 'Scan' with explicit resource 'MCP configuration files' and concrete file paths (.claude/settings.json, .cursor/mcp.json, .vscode/mcp.json). Distinguishes from sibling 'audit_config' by specifying MCP-specific scope and threats (CVE-2025-59536, malicious hooks).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('verify MCP configurations are safe before use'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives (e.g., vs 'audit_config'), but MCP-specific focus provides implicit differentiation from general security siblings.

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