security_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses what the scan looks for but does not mention side effects, output format, potential performance implications, or whether the operation is read-only. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then lists arguments and their meanings. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and parameters but does not describe the output/report structure, error handling, or any prerequisites (e.g., if the .saz file must be opened first). Since no output schema exists, this missing return-value information leaves the agent without a complete picture of what the tool produces.

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?

Both parameters are explained in the description: saz_path is the path to the .saz file, and max_findings is a cap on reported findings with an explicit range (1-2000). Since the schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully compensates and adds clear semantic meaning.

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 scans traffic for security issues and enumerates specific categories (cleartext credentials, secret tokens, cookie flags, sensitive files, PII leakage). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on session browsing and statistics.

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 usage is implied by the stated purpose: use when you need to identify security issues in captured traffic. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-or-when-not-to-use guidance, nor any comparison to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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