secure_this

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

Despite no annotations, the description comprehensively discloses behavior: scanning, applying verifiable fixes, re-scanning, rollback on failure, and the return structure. It also specifies post-invocation actions like writing fixedCode and checking definitionOfDone.passed.

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?

The description is fairly long but well-organized, with the main idea front-loaded, followed by details, and an example. Each sentence adds value, though some trimming could improve conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description is highly complete: it explains the algorithm, return format, and post-invocation steps. It leaves no major gaps for an AI agent to act correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'code' and 'language' in the example but does not elaborate on 'framework' or 'filePath' beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Close the loop on vulnerabilities in code: scan, apply only the fixes that verifiably land...' and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings like fix_code+verify_fix, making it specific and actionable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Prefer this over fix_code+verify_fix when you want a guarantee the fix landed — not just a suggestion.' It also implies context for use.

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