check_security_vulnerabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It tells the agent the tool scans code and dependencies, but does not disclose whether it modifies files, requires special permissions, accesses the network, or what side effects or outputs to expect. The word 'scans' hints at read-only behavior, but this is not explicit.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every part contributes useful meaning: the action, the target, and the specific areas checked.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter and a simple schema, there is no output schema and no annotation. The description does not explain what the tool returns or how results are presented, and it omits any operational behavior like whether the scan is read-only. An agent could invoke it, but would be guessing about the outcome and side effects.

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?

The single parameter projectPath already has a complete schema description ('Path to the project directory to scan'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds context about security/dependency scanning but does not meaningfully extend the meaning of projectPath beyond what the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Scans') and resource ('code') with a clear scope ('security vulnerabilities and dependency issues'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_code_quality and check_accessibility by stating a distinct security-focused purpose.

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 when to use the tool: when security vulnerabilities or dependency issues need to be checked. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or when not to use it, so the guidance is only implicit.

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