veto_security_scan

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

The description adds some behavioral context (returns vulnerabilities with specific fields, optional inline diagnostics) beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network calls, duration, or state changes) nor limitations. 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?

The description is three sentences, each adding distinct information. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for parameters or specifics). No extraneous content.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately covers the return format (vulnerabilities with severity, etc.) and mentions optional inline diagnostics for file_path. It covers the main aspects of the tool but could elaborate on the exact data structure or pagination.

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 100%, so all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds value by clarifying that file_path triggers inline diagnostics and that agent_response is part of an agentic loop. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it runs the OWASP Top 10 security scanner on provided code, lists the return details (vulnerabilities with severity, CWE/OWASP category, remediation steps), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like veto_secrets_scan and veto_code_review by focusing on security scanning with OWASP Top 10 and inline diagnostics.

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 provides one usage hint (use file_path for diagnostics) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as veto_secrets_scan, veto_full_review, or veto_code_review. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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