Contract Static Scan

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

Description explicitly states 'no network request is made' and 'Analysis is local', while annotations include openWorldHint: true, which typically indicates possible external/world interaction. This contradiction undermines transparency, so score is 1 despite additional candidacy caveats.

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 clear and well-structured, with the core purpose in the first sentence and additional context in short paragraphs. The candidacy warning is somewhat verbose but relevant and useful.

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 an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers input, behavior, and the safety/profile of the tool. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'normalize the detector output' means, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 has no descriptions for the two parameters, but the description explains `repo` as a path inside the engagement workspace. `exclude_informational` is left entirely to inference from its name and default value.

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?

Clearly states it runs Slither over a Solidity project and normalizes detector output. This is specific and distinct from generic audit or scan siblings, identifying both tool and target.

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?

Provides useful context that the analysis is local, passive, and budget-free, and warns that findings are candidates requiring PoC. However, it does not explicitly tell when to choose this over sibling tools like semgrep_scan or contract_toolchain.

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