guardvibe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that the tool returns a JSON string (important behavioral detail given no output schema), but omits information about side effects, error handling, whether the scan is read-only or destructive, and what specific security issues it detects.

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?

Extremely efficient single-sentence structure that front-loads essential information: action, format, use case, and return type. Every clause earns its place with zero 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?

While the description compensates for the missing output schema by stating it returns a JSON string, it lacks completeness for a security tool by not specifying what vulnerabilities or issues the scan targets (secrets, dependencies, etc.) given the presence of specialized scanning siblings.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'path' parameter, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'Scan a directory' which aligns with the schema but does not add additional semantic details like path format requirements (absolute vs. relative) or examples.

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 (scanning a directory), output format (SARIF v2.1.0), and primary use case (CI/CD integration), distinguishing it from generic siblings like 'scan_directory' through the explicit format specification.

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 (CI/CD integration with GitHub, GitLab, Azure DevOps), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct comparisons to sibling scanning tools like 'scan_directory' or 'scan_file'.

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