guardvibe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses output content by listing the seven sections returned (risk, impact, exploit, etc.), compensating for the missing output schema. However, it fails to state whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first front-loads the comprehensive output specification using a colon-separated list; the second states the value proposition. Every word earns its place with no redundant padding.

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 no output schema exists, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the expected return content sections. With fully documented parameters and clear purpose, it is nearly complete, though it could mention that valid rule_id values come from GuardVibe scanning tools in the sibling set.

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%, with rule_id, code, and format all well-documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema (e.g., no examples of code snippet length limits or rule_id format beyond the schema's example), warranting the baseline score.

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 tool provides 'deep explanation of a security finding' with specific output categories (risk, impact, exploit scenario, fix, test strategy). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'fix_code' by focusing on explanation rather than application, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 'Helps agents apply fixes correctly' implies this tool should be used when detailed context is needed before remediation. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g., 'use this before fix_code') or exclusion criteria (when to use get_security_docs instead).

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