guardvibe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully enumerates the security checks performed (OWASP Top 10, XSS, etc.), but omits the safety profile (read-only vs. destructive), output behavior, rate limits, or size constraints for the code parameter.

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 efficiently structured sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core capability with specific examples, while the second provides usage context. 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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It successfully explains the tool's security focus but fails to describe return values, severity levels, or distinguish from the numerous sibling security tools available.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear enum values and types. The description does not add semantic nuance beyond the schema (e.g., expected code length, framework-specific requirements, or format selection guidance), warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 specific action (analyze) and target (code) with concrete examples of vulnerability types (OWASP Top 10, XSS, SQL injection). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like `scan_file` (which likely scans files on disk) or `fix_code` (which applies fixes), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over similar tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('when reviewing or writing code to catch security issues early'), but lacks explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or named alternatives. It does not clarify when NOT to use this versus `fix_code` or `scan_file`.

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