generate_security_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates inputs and produces a report with a remediation plan and compliance notes. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive, but the nature of generating a report implies no side effects. Lacks explicit safety statements like 'does not modify any state.'

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The key action and output are front-loaded: 'Generate a comprehensive security assessment report.' Every sentence adds distinct value.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains the output (remediation plan with OWASP notes). It does not detail the output structure or format, but the mention of aggregation and prioritization provides sufficient context. Parameter coverage is 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds value by explaining that configs come from scan_mcp_config and audit_results from audit_agent_permissions, clarifying their provenance. However, it does not provide format or constraints beyond what the schema offers.

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 verb ('Generate'), the resource ('comprehensive security assessment report'), and the scope ('for an agent deployment'). It explicitly mentions aggregating results from config scans and permission audits and producing a prioritized remediation plan with OWASP compliance notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_mcp_config and audit_agent_permissions, which are single-purpose scanners.

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 usage after running config scans and permission audits (since it aggregates their results), but does not explicitly state prerequisites or when not to use it. Alternatives are implied by sibling tools (e.g., use scan_mcp_config for scans instead), but no direct guidance on exclusion criteria.

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