security-preflight__scan_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states hard input bounds (64 KiB, 2000 lines, 4096 chars/line), explicitly rules out model calls, repo fetching and code execution, and discloses the return as a redacted signed receipt. It omits auth/permission and idempotency behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the security-check framing and followed by the bounds and return contract. The bracketed namespace prefix and '$1' pricing token are noise but small; every other clause earns its place.

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?

Behavior is well covered (limits, no execution, redacted signed receipt), which is important given there is no output schema. However, for a 2-required-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, leaving both parameters undocumented makes the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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% for both required parameters (source, agent_id), and the description does not explain either. 'Inline' loosely implies source is literal content rather than a path, but agent_id is entirely undefined, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a 'bounded inline VulnCanon source scan' for security checks, which separates it from generic siblings. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer (e.g., screen_injection vs security_preflight) when multiple security tools are available, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives like security_preflight or screen_injection. The only guidance-adjacent text is the caveat that results are 'indicators, not proven exploits', which frames interpretation but not invocation context.

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