codesafer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the scanning action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention output format, error handling, performance characteristics, or security implications beyond the high-level purpose.

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 immediately conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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?

For a security scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the scan returns, how findings are presented, or any behavioral context needed for effective use.

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%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one parameter and high coverage, this is acceptable. Baseline would be 3, but the simplicity of a single parameter elevates it.

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 verb ('scan') and resource ('AI configuration/rules file') with specific security objectives ('prompt injection and Rules File Backdoor attacks'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'scan_file' by specifying the file type, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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 security scanning of AI rules files, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_file' or 'scan_directory'. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives.

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