guardvibe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output format (trust state, verdict, confidence) and configuration support (.guardviberc allowlists). However, it lacks explicit statements about whether the tool is read-only/destructive, requires elevated privileges for host scope, or performance characteristics—important gaps for a security audit tool that inspects system-wide configurations.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 defines scope and attack vectors, sentence 2 covers output and configuration, sentence 3 provides parameter guidance. Information is front-loaded with the comprehensive audit declaration, and every clause earns its place by conveying specific technical details (CVE numbers, file types, output formats).

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 complexity (multiple CVE checks, three scope levels) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers output semantics (trust state, verdict, confidence) and distinguishes scope levels. It loses one point for not addressing privilege requirements (likely needed for host scope) or explicitly confirming the read-only nature of the audit, which would be critical safety information given the sensitive domains accessed.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds operational guidance for the scope parameter ('Use scope=project...'), but this largely restates information already present in the schema's detailed enum descriptions (which already specify file patterns like .claude.json and shell profiles). No additional syntax, examples, or validation rules are provided beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Comprehensive AI host security audit' and uses specific verbs (scans, reports) with detailed resources (MCP configurations, hooks, environment variables). It distinguishes from siblings like audit_mcp_config and scan_host_config by citing specific CVEs (CVE-2025-59536, CVE-2026-21852) and attack vectors (supply chain, result injection) that imply deeper inspection than generic scanning.

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 explicit guidance on parameter selection: 'Use scope=project (default) for project-only scan, scope=host to include shell profiles and global configs.' This helps the agent choose appropriate scope levels. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools (e.g., when to use this versus scan_host_config or audit_mcp_config), though the specific CVE focus implies unique coverage.

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