Code SAST Scan

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it requires a specific external dependency (semgrep on PATH) and mentions expected output (CWE, severity). This supplements the annotations well without contradiction.

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 short, focused paragraphs with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the primary action, followed by bullet-like details and a prerequisite.

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 that an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, typical findings, prerequisite, and high-level output format. Combined with annotations, it provides a complete picture for an AI agent.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 SAST via Semgrep to find specific security flaws like SQL injection, XSS, etc., and mentions CWE classifications and severity levels. It distinguishes from sibling scanning tools by being focused on source code static analysis.

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 mentions the prerequisite of having semgrep on PATH, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other scanning tools (e.g., model_file_scan, skill_scan) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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