guardvibe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and successfully discloses analytical behaviors: mapping sensitive areas, identifying high-risk workflows, and recommending guard modes. However, it omits operational traits like whether it performs read-only analysis or requires specific permissions, and doesn't mention performance characteristics for large repositories.

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 dense sentence with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with primary verb 'Analyze', followed by parallel clauses detailing specific analytical outputs. Every phrase contributes distinct information about capabilities (mapping, identifying, recommending, listing).

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description compensates by enumerating four specific output categories (mapped sensitive areas, risk workflows, guard recommendations, priority fixes). This provides sufficient expectation-setting for an analysis tool, though it doesn't describe the data structure or nesting of these outputs.

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 coverage is 100% (both 'path' and 'format' well-documented in schema), establishing baseline 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., path must be absolute vs relative, format affects which fields are populated), but this is acceptable given comprehensive schema documentation.

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?

Uses specific action verbs (Analyze, Maps, identifies, recommends, lists) and clearly targets the 'repository' resource. The phrase 'overall security posture' effectively distinguishes this from siblings like scan_file or check_dependencies which target specific aspects. The enumerated outputs (auth, payments, PII, guard mode) provide concrete scope definition.

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?

Implies usage through 'overall' scope suggesting comprehensive analysis versus targeted scans, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., repository must be cloned locally) or exclusion criteria.

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