guardvibe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the classification system ('active' vs. 'removed') and actionable implications ('needs rotation'). It could improve by mentioning performance characteristics or read-only nature, but the finding taxonomy is well-documented.

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: sentence 1 states the core action, sentence 2 defines the unique value proposition (historical detection), sentence 3 explains the output classification system. Information is front-loaded and 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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by detailing the finding classification system ('active'/'removed') and remediation implications. For a 3-parameter security tool with no annotations, this covers the essential behavioral contract, though it could hint at the return structure format.

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% (all 3 parameters documented), establishing a baseline of 3. The description provides no additional parameter context, but given the schema fully defines 'path', 'max_commits', and 'format', no supplementation is necessary.

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 uses specific verbs ('scan', 'finds', 'marks') and clearly targets 'git history' as the resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'scan_secrets' by emphasizing historical commits and secrets 'later removed'—highlighting the unique temporal scope that current-state scanners miss.

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 context about when findings appear (historical vs. current) and implies the tool's purpose through phrases like 'committed in the past'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this (e.g., for scanning current working directory) or prerequisites (git repository required), stopping short of naming alternatives.

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