security_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions data is stored locally in .guardvibe/stats.json, implying it reads local data. However, it does not state if the tool is read-only, modifies anything, or requires authentication. The lack of side-effect clarity is a gap.

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 consists of two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the storage detail is relevant. It earns its place without 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?

Given the 3 parameters documented in schema and no output schema, the description provides purpose and storage location but lacks detail on return format or specifics of the statistics. It is adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for understanding output behavior.

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?

All three parameters (path, period, format) have clear descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it shows cumulative security statistics, grade trend, and vulnerability fix progress. The verb 'show' is specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'scan_directory' or 'remediation_plan'.

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 a use case ('demonstrate the value of GuardVibe security scanning over time') but gives no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the 35 sibling tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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