vulnforge_audit_db

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 usefully names what it detects (injection vulnerabilities, raw interpolations, credential leaks), which is real behavioral value, but it never states that this is a static, non-executing analysis, nor how findings are reported or prioritized.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, scope, and detection targets are all packed in 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about what an agent gets back (finding format, severity, whether it only analyzes rather than connects to a DB). It covers the input scope well but leaves the result side underspecified.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema already documents queryCode and sourceFile fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, and its mention of 'connection strings' is only loosely reflected in the queryCode schema description, which lists SQL/ORM snippets but not connection strings.

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 gives a specific verb (audits) and enumerates the exact resources in scope: SQL/NoSQL query snippets, ORM commands, and connection strings. That DB-specific framing implicitly separates it from vulnforge_audit_web and vulnforge_audit_api, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus vulnforge_full_scan, nor any mention of the natural audit-then-inject_patch workflow. The usage context (you have a query snippet to check) is only inferable from the resource list.

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