guardvibe

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral trait: 'Data is stored locally in .guardvibe/stats.json' (data source and persistence). However, lacks disclosure on error handling (what if file missing?), side effects, or permissions needed to read the file.

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, zero waste. First sentence defines functionality; second provides usage context and implementation detail. Appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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 100% schema coverage and zero required parameters, description adequately covers the tool's purpose and data source. Missing output format details (implied by 'Show' but not explicit) and error case handling given no output schema exists.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters. Description adds contextual meaning by linking 'this project' to path and 'over time' to period, but does not add syntax, format details, or examples beyond 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?

Specific verb (Show) + resources (cumulative security statistics, grade trend, vulnerability fix progress). Distinguishes from scanning/analysis siblings by emphasizing historical aggregation ('cumulative', 'over time') vs point-in-time operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'to demonstrate the value of GuardVibe security scanning over time.' Provides clear value proposition. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives from the extensive sibling list (e.g., compliance_report, repo_security_posture).

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