guardvibe

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

No annotations are provided, requiring the description to carry full behavioral disclosure. While it identifies the tool retrieves 'guidance,' it fails to disclose critical operational traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what format the returned documentation takes (structured vs. plain text).

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 that efficiently communicate purpose and usage context without redundant or filler text. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct functional or contextual information.

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 low complexity (single parameter, 100% schema coverage) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the core functional purpose. However, it omits behavioral characteristics and return value details that would be necessary for a complete operational picture given the absence of annotations.

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 with detailed examples for the 'topic' parameter. The description mentions 'topic, framework, or vulnerability type' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic information about parameter format, validation rules, or usage patterns 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 states the tool 'Get[s] security best practices and guidance' (specific verb + resource) and clarifies scope as 'for a specific topic, framework, or vulnerability type.' The phrase 'Use this to learn how to write secure code' distinguishes it from active siblings like fix_code or scan_file. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar knowledge-base tools like explain_remediation.

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 description provides a positive use case ('Use this to learn how to write secure code'), indicating when to employ the tool for educational purposes. However, it lacks negative constraints (when not to use) and does not name specific alternatives among the numerous sibling security tools to guide selection.

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