securitypass_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that execution is scope-gated and that the return is a safe securitypass_receipt_v1 envelope without raw secrets or PoC payloads, but it omits operational details such as whether the scan is active/intrusive, required scope proofs, or timeouts.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, then states the return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler 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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and output safety. However, it leaves important context unstated, including prerequisites, parameter routing between pack_id/pack_yaml/target_url/contract_id, and how to choose proof methods.

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 78%, so most parameters already have structured descriptions. The description only frames the registered-pack and target-URL modes and adds no detail beyond the schema for parameters such as pack_yaml, profile, proof_method, expected_token, or proof_timeout_ms.

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 states a specific verb ('Start'), resource ('SecurityPass scan'), and scope ('against a registered pack or target URL'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as securitypass_register_pack or securitypass_status.

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 implies the tool is used to start a scan against a registered pack or target URL, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives like securitypass_register_pack, securitypass_verify_scope, or securitypass_status. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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