Semgrep Scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds that it reads files already fetched and sends nothing to the target, reinforcing passivity. It also explains config behavior (always includes rules/semgrep/ and can add registry pack). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then prerequisite. No redundant phrasing or wasted words.

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?

While output schema exists, the description omits semantics for three of four parameters and doesn't explain how results are returned or stored. It also doesn't clarify severity filtering or wait_seconds behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only partially explains config (can add registry pack or workspace path), but leaves path, severity, and wait_seconds unexplained. This is insufficient given zero schema documentation.

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 runs Semgrep over source in the workspace, with a specific verb and resource. It also notes passivity, which distinguishes it from active scanning siblings, but does not explicitly differentiate from other static scanners like secret_scan.

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?

It provides a prerequisite (use source_fetch first) and mentions passive behavior, but does not state when to prefer this over alternative scanning tools or give exclusion criteria. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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