codesafer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions what the tool does (scanning for malicious patterns) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as performance characteristics (e.g., speed, resource usage), error handling, output format, or any limitations (e.g., file size constraints, supported formats). This is a significant gap for a security tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Scan a single file') and specifies the scope of detection without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity of a security scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., scan results, threat levels, details of findings), how to interpret outputs, or any behavioral context needed for effective use, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'file_path' well-documented in the schema as 'Absolute path to the file to scan'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as file format requirements or path validation rules, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 with a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('a single file'), and specifies the types of malicious patterns it detects (hidden chars, BiDi, homoglyphs, etc.). It distinguishes from 'scan_directory' by specifying 'single file', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'scan_rules_file' or 'ai_analyze'.

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 implies usage for scanning individual files for specific malicious patterns, suggesting when to use it (for single file analysis). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'scan_directory' for multiple files or 'ai_analyze' for broader analysis, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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