guardvibe

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose critical safety traits: whether it writes files to disk (destructive) or returns content (read-only), execution time expectations, or what happens if stack detection is ambiguous. Lists generated artifacts but omits behavior constraints.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and scope. Parenthetical examples (Next.js, Supabase, Stripe) and colon-separated output list efficiently communicate capabilities without verbosity. Zero wasted words.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers inputs. However, lacking both annotations and output schema, it should clarify whether generated policies are returned as text or written to project files. Missing this behavioral context leaves operational ambiguity.

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 has 100% description coverage ('Project root directory to scan', 'Output format'). Description aligns with schema (mentions scanning a project) but adds no syntax details, format examples, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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?

Excellent specificity: states it scans to detect stack (Next.js, Supabase, Stripe, etc.) and generates tailored security policies. Lists concrete outputs (CSP headers, CORS config, RLS suggestions, rate limiting, security headers). The 'generate' verb clearly distinguishes it from sibling 'policy_check' (likely validation) and scanning tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'policy_check' or 'audit_config'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether project must be initialized) or when NOT to use (e.g., if policies already exist). Agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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