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 explains the output (a security report with a score) but omits critical safety information—such as whether the operation is read-only, if it stores results persistently, or rate limiting.

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 consists of exactly two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action and deliverable, 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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by describing the expected deliverable (report with security score), though it could clarify the format parameter's implications.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'multiple files' which aligns with the files parameter, but adds no additional semantic detail, syntax constraints, or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses specific verbs ('Scan', 'generate') and resources ('multiple files', 'project-wide security report'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like scan_file or check_code by emphasizing the multi-file, project-wide scope and the generation of a security score.

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 second sentence ('Use this for comprehensive security audits') provides clear contextual guidance on when to invoke the tool. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., 'use scan_file for single files') or exclusions.

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