scan_host_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete categories of checks performed, including a named CVE. It still omits whether the tool is strictly read-only, whether it touches or writes any config, permission requirements, and any runtime/performance characteristics for host-scope scans.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the security-issue inventory before the scope escalation note, with no filler. Slightly list-heavy, but every item conveys a distinct check the agent could not otherwise infer.

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?

Three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry more weight than it does. It covers what is scanned and scope escalation, but says nothing about the return shape beyond the `format` param and omits the `full` scope, leaving meaningful gaps for a security-scanning 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% and both enums are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the project-vs-host distinction for `scope`, but never mentions the third enum value `full` (home dir) or the `format` parameter, so it adds only partial value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Scan host environment for AI security issues') and enumerates the exact issues covered: API base URL hijacking (CVE-2026-21852), credential exposure in shell profiles, .env leaks, and env var sniffing. This clearly separates it from broad scanners like scan_secrets or full_audit, though it never names a sibling to reinforce the distinction.

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 second sentence gives real escalation guidance: project scope checks .env files, and scope=host adds shell profiles and global AI configs. However, it never says when to prefer this over scan_secrets, audit_config, or scan_config_change, nor when not to run it, leaving the sibling-routing decision to inference.

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