security_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. While 'scan' implies a read-only operation, the description does not state this explicitly, nor does it mention side effects, required permissions, output format, or performance implications. It only notes CWE mapping, which is a partial result indicator but not sufficient for full transparency.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and list specific vulnerability types. No wasted words or redundant information. It is efficiently structured and immediately understandable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It mentions 'maps findings to CWE identifiers,' but does not clarify the output format (e.g., whether it returns a list, report, or score), or address error handling, performance, or special conditions. Given the tool's complexity (security scanning with multiple vulnerability types), this is incomplete.

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% (the single 'path' parameter is described as 'File or directory path to scan'). The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema; it simply refers to scanning Python code. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 scans Python code for security vulnerabilities, enumerates specific vulnerability types (command injection, SQL injection, etc.), and mentions CWE mapping. This provides a specific verb+resource ('Scan Python code') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_security_score, which likely returns a score rather than conducting a scan.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention get_security_score or other related tools, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. The purpose implies usage for security scanning, but explicit differentiation from siblings is absent.

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