check_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool analyzes code for vulnerabilities, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly mention whether it modifies anything, requires network access, or has other side effects. While not misleading, it lacks depth.

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?

Three concise sentences: main purpose, usage guideline, and example. Front-loaded with the core function, no extraneous words. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (analyze code), the description covers the essential: what it does, how to use it, and distinguishes from a sibling. No output schema is provided, but the example implies return of a security analysis. It could mention the output format more explicitly, but overall 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'format' parameter (markdown vs json) and providing an example that contextualizes the parameters. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 it analyzes inline code for security vulnerabilities, listing specific categories (OWASP Top 10, XSS, SQL injection). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'scan_file' which scans files on disk, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit instructions: pass code as a string parameter, use 'scan_file' for files on disk. Includes an example call with parameters, providing clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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