get_security_score

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It tells the user what it returns (score, grade, profile, top vulnerability rules) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether it performs intensive scanning, network access, or has any destructive potential. It only says it gets an overall health score, which implies read-only, but without explicit statement of safety, the agent cannot fully assess behavioral implications.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main output and its range, then a concise phrase about intended use. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple retriever tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one integer input, no output schema, no annotations), and the description adequately explains the output (score, grade, profile, rules). However, it could benefit from clarifying edge cases like invalid paths or what 'top vulnerability rules' means, but given the simplicity, the provided context is sufficient. There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing return components.

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% (only the 'path' parameter is described as 'Directory path to scan'). The description adds context about the tool's purpose but does not elaborate on the 'path' parameter beyond what the schema states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema is sufficient for a single parameter, and the description does not hinder understanding.

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 that the tool retrieves a security health score from 0 to 100, along with grade, profile, and top vulnerability rules, and positions it as a quick posture assessment. It is distinct from sibling tools like security_scan, which likely performs detailed scanning, and get_*_score siblings that focus on other domains.

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 implies it's for a quick security assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like security_scan or other score tools. There's no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools are more appropriate for detailed security analysis. The brevity provides some contextual hint ('quick posture assessment') but lacks explicit guidance.

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