guardvibe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses the output structure (allow/ask/deny verdicts, blast radius, safer alternatives) and detection capabilities. It implies the tool doesn't execute the command (analyze before execution), though an explicit safety guarantee would strengthen this further.

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 optimally concise with two information-dense sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and return value, while the second efficiently enumerates detection categories without redundancy.

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 both annotations and output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing the return verdict structure and specific risk categories detected. It covers the essential behavioral contract for a 4-parameter analysis tool, though explicit mention of read-only safety would achieve full completeness.

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, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'context-aware risk assessment' which loosely maps to the cwd and branch parameters, but doesn't explicitly elaborate on parameter interactions, format expectations, or provide examples 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 the specific action (analyze), target resource (shell command), and timing (before execution). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like check_code or scan_secrets by focusing on runtime command analysis rather than static code or dependency analysis.

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?

The phrase 'before execution' provides clear temporal context for when to invoke the tool. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for other use cases, the distinction from sibling tools is implicit through the specific focus on shell command security validation.

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