scan_host_config

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

The description details what is scanned (specific CVEs, credential exposure) and how scope affects coverage. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies anything, or requires authentication. The safety profile is left assumed.

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 concise sentences. The first front-loads purpose and specific threats; the second adds actionable usage guidance. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The description covers parameter usage and scanning behavior adequately, but does not explain the output structure or return values. With no output schema, the agent lacks information about what the scan results look like, leaving a gap in completeness for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral difference between scope values, e.g., 'Checks .env files at project scope; add scope=host to also check shell profiles and global AI configs.' This clarifies parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool scans host environment for AI security issues, listing specific CVEs and threat types. It distinguishes itself from sibling scanning tools like scan_secrets or scan_directory by focusing on AI-specific host configuration issues.

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 explains that default scope checks .env files, and adding scope=host extends to shell profiles and global configs. It provides clear context for different scopes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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