MobSF: scorecard de seguridad

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds the return content but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, rate limits). It matches annotations perfectly, no 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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and result. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., list format), but it is clear and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description partially explains return values (score, findings, trackers) but lacks details like score range (0-100?), findings classification, and what trackers are. This incompleteness may require follow-up questions.

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 100% for the single parameter 'hash', which is documented in the schema. The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide additional 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 it returns a security summary including score, findings (high/warning/info), and trackers. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like mobsf_scan (initiates scan) and mobsf_report (likely more detailed).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., mobsf_report). It implies an analysis has been performed but doesn't state prerequisites or context. Without explicit usage conditions, the agent may misuse it.

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