guardvibe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses the specific vulnerability checks performed (CVE-2026-21852, environment variable sniffing) and scope behavior. It could improve by explicitly stating this is a read-only operation or describing output characteristics, though 'scan' implies non-destructive behavior.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the security purpose and specific CVEs. The second sentence immediately guides usage through the scope parameter. Every clause earns its place by either defining the threat model or guiding invocation.

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 rich input schema (100% coverage, well-documented enums) and absence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on threat model specifics rather than parameter mechanics. It could enhance completeness by hinting at the output structure or report format, but adequately covers the tool's security domain context.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by mapping the scope parameter to specific security artifacts ('shell profiles', 'global AI configs') that align with the threat model described in the first sentence, reinforcing the security context beyond the schema's functional descriptions.

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 tool 'Scan[s] host environment for AI security issues' and enumerates specific threats (API base URL hijacking CVE-2026-21852, credential exposure, .env leaks). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_secrets or scan_directory by focusing on host-level AI configuration security rather than generic code 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?

The description provides clear guidance on the scope parameter ('Checks .env files at project scope; add scope=host to also check shell profiles'), effectively explaining when to use each scan depth. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., when to choose this over scan_secrets or audit_config).

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