security_overview

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the performance trade-off ('@slow when quick=False') and the general content of the briefing (scanner health, findings, risk trends), but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or other side effects. This is moderate disclosure but leaves gaps.

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 and well-structured, opening with a clear title and purpose, followed by a compact definition of the summary content, and then a focused list of usage examples. There is no redundancy; every sentence adds 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 the complexity of the tool (10 parameters, output schema), the description provides a high-level purpose and usage triggers, which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It does not repeat parameters that are fully documented in the schema, and the output schema covers return values. It could mention the configurable periods explicitly (daily/weekly/monthly) but these are inferred from the description and schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, only referencing 'quick' indirectly through the performance note. All parameter details are already fully documented in the schema.

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's function as a 'Security briefing' that provides daily/weekly/monthly summaries of scanner health, findings, and risk trends. The 'USE WHEN' examples ('morning briefing', 'security overview', 'scanner status') distinguish it from sibling tools like investigate or reports, which focus on deeper analysis or custom reporting.

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 explicit usage scenarios with 'USE WHEN' trigger phrases, signaling appropriate contexts such as morning briefings and weekly retrospectives. However, it does not state when not to use the tool or explicitly mention alternative sibling tools, so it offers clear context but lacks exclusions.

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