guardvibe

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses report content (exploit scenarios, audit evidence) and grouping behavior, but fails to explicitly state safety properties (read-only vs. destructive) or permission requirements critical for a security scanning tool.

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?

Four sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with core action (generate report), followed by mechanics (scans directory), output details (exploit scenarios), and usage hint (executive mode). Every sentence 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 coverage of report content given lack of output schema. Mentions grouping logic and evidence types. Minor gap: does not explicitly confirm read-only nature or describe error conditions (e.g., invalid path), though 'scan' implies read-only behavior.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description reinforces the 'mode' parameter's purpose and implies 'path' is a directory, but adds no syntax, format examples, or constraints 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?

Opens with specific verb+resource ('Generate a compliance-focused security report') and explicitly lists supported frameworks (SOC2, PCI-DSS, HIPAA, GDPR, ISO27001). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like scan_directory or audit_config by emphasizing compliance control mapping and audit evidence.

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 use (compliance audits) and includes specific guidance for the mode parameter ('Use mode=executive for a C-level summary'). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives from the sibling list.

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