guardvibe

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully adds critical behavioral traits: output style ('Returns only findings (no boilerplate)'), performance characteristics ('Lightweight and fast'), and auto-detection capability ('detects language'). Missing only error handling or permission requirements.

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 sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose ('Scan a single file...'), followed by output characteristics, and closing with performance/implementation details. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema exists, the description adequately covers return values ('returns findings in JSON', 'no boilerplate'). For a 2-parameter tool with simple schema, it covers the essential operational context including performance expectations and ideal timing (post-edit).

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 baseline 3. The description aligns with schema (mentioning JSON output and disk reading) but does not add semantic depth, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already documents for file_path and format parameters.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Scan') with exact resource scope ('single file from disk') and objective ('security vulnerabilities'). Effectively distinguishes from siblings like scan_directory or scan_changed_files by emphasizing 'single file' and 'real-time use' versus batch/directory operations.

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 clear contextual guidance: 'Designed for real-time use: call this after editing a file to catch security issues immediately.' Implicitly differentiates from directory-level siblings through the 'single file' and 'real-time' framing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like scan_directory for bulk operations.

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