Security Assistant

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

Annotations already establish the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotent, openWorld). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the output nature ('analysis and remediation guidance only') and an explicit refusal/safety policy around unauthorized weaponization, which an agent cannot infer from annotations. It stops short of describing output shape or latency, but this is meaningful added context.

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: the first front-loads what the tool is for, the second front-loads what it will not do. Every clause carries information and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states that the return is analysis and remediation guidance rather than scan results. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a 100%-documented schema, an agent has what it needs to call the tool; only the exact output format/verbosity is unspecified.

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 enum values and the per-field conditions (context for pentest_assist, framework for threat_model, language for code_audit) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the task domains in prose and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already 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 names four concrete security functions (code audit, threat model, pentest support, smart-contract review) plus the resource type it operates on, so an agent can tell it is an analysis/remediation tool rather than a scanner. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as bee_code or bee_smith_assurance, so it falls short of a 5.

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 opening 'Use for ...' clause gives clear invocation contexts, and the second sentence states hard exclusions (no target scanning, no exploit execution, refuses unauthorized weaponization). It never names an alternative sibling to route to when the exclusion applies, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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