code_security_scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: scanning happens 'from a disposable copy' (no repo mutation) and unconfigured scanners return an 'honest fallback' rather than silently failing. It omits runtime/rate characteristics and what a fallback report looks like.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and tooling with no filler. It is slightly packed with parenthetical definitions, but every 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?

With no output schema and no annotations gap, the description covers the operator-configuration model and safety posture, which is the key complexity. It still leaves parameter meaning and result shape unaddressed, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters, yet the description never mentions repo_path or the timeout (and its 120s default). With no schema descriptions, the description was the only place to compensate for the coverage gap, and it does not.

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?

Names the concrete tooling (Semgrep SAST, Gitleaks secret detection) and the target (a repository), so the agent knows exactly what analysis runs. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings like security_scan and vulnerability_scan, which likely also run scans.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this over security_scan or vulnerability_scan, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The note that sub-scanners are 'independently optional' hints at configurability but gives no routing guidance.

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