guardvibe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively details the detection logic by enumerating specific security downgrade patterns it identifies (debug mode, cookie flags, hardcoded secrets). However, it omits whether the tool is read-only (implied by 'scan' but not stated) and what the return structure looks like given the lack of output schema.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first clause establishes the operation, while the list efficiently communicates scope without verbosity. The front-loaded structure puts the comparative action first, and the description avoids redundant filler despite covering eight distinct security check types.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's detection scope through the enumerated security downgrade types and implies structured output via the 'format' parameter. Minor gap: it doesn't characterize the return value structure (e.g., list of findings vs. pass/fail) or behavior when no downgrades are detected.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description implicitly maps to the 'before' and 'after' parameters through the comparison concept, but adds no syntax guidance, format examples, or semantic constraints 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 explicitly states the core action ('Compare before/after versions') and resource ('config file'), while the colon-delimited list of specific security downgrade patterns (CORS relaxation, CSP weakening, HSTS removal, etc.) clearly distinguishes this from siblings like audit_config or scan_file that don't perform diff-based analysis.

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?

While the specific security downgrade examples provide strong implied context about when to use this tool (when reviewing config changes for security regressions), there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar siblings like scan_changed_files or audit_config, nor any prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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