security-check

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 discloses that the tool returns 'a list of actions the agent MUST execute to protect secrets,' which adds behavioral context beyond a simple analysis. However, it doesn't cover other traits like error handling, performance, or side effects, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then adds return value and usage instructions in two sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose, return value, and usage timing, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or prerequisites. For a tool that returns actionable lists, more context on the output structure would be helpful, though it's adequate as a minimum viable description.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned if any implicit inputs are required (e.g., project context). Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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's purpose: 'Analyze the project for security issues after SecureCode setup.' It specifies the verb ('Analyze') and resource ('project for security issues'), and mentions the context ('after SecureCode setup'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-active-rules' or 'get-status', which might also relate to security analysis.

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 clear usage context: 'Call this after SDK installation' and 'after SecureCode setup,' which helps determine when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient to guide usage without being misleading.

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