AISVS Benchmark

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

Annotations fully cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) so the description need not repeat those. It adds context about the AISVS standard but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose. Every word contributes value; there is no fluff or 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and good annotations, the description is nearly adequate but omits the default behavior (all 9 checks) and does not reference the output schema or differentiate from similar sibling tools.

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 only parameter 'checks' has a complete description in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the comma-separated IDs and default behavior.

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 tool runs AISVS v1.0 compliance checks, using a specific verb and standard. It distinguishes from siblings like cis_benchmark by naming a different standard.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compliance, check, or cis_benchmark. The description lacks when/when-not criteria or references to sibling tools.

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