security_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists specific threat types detected, implying a read-only scan operation. It does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention authorization needs, but the detailed detection list adds transparency.

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 well-organized: a concise opening sentence, a clear bullet list of detections, a usage instruction, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the security scanning complexity and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description provides a complete picture: what it detects, how to use it, and parameter details. No gaps identified.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters ('content' and 'source') with their purpose, compensating fully for the 0% schema description coverage. This goes beyond the schema which only provides types and titles.

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 'Scan content for prompt injection attacks and security threats' and lists specific detection categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scan_for_vulnerabilities' which likely targets software vulnerabilities, and 'security_report' which generates reports.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use this to verify untrusted content before including it in prompts,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, which would elevate the score.

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