Security

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). Actions like 'suppress' imply mutation, but no details about permissions, reversibility, or side effects are provided.

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 concise, using a single sentence plus a compact listing of actions and parameters. However, the inline parenthetical formatting is somewhat dense and could be more readable.

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 6 parameters, no required params, and output schema present but undescribed, the description leaves many gaps (e.g., 'remove', 'rule_id', return values). The explicit deferral to the help tool acknowledges incompleteness, but the tool is not fully self-contained.

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 0%, but the description adds inline parameter details for actions, clarifying allowed values for 'engine' and 'format' (e.g., heuristic|semgrep, json|sarif), which adds value beyond the schema's defaults.

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 does security scanning over the code knowledge graph, listing specific actions (scan, report, suppress, rule_list) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like config, graph, or query.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists actions and defers to the help tool for full documentation, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.

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