scan_security

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description confirms read-only and adds the output format and file-skipping behavior. No contradictions; annotations are well-supported.

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 (about 80 words), front-loads the purpose, lists vulnerabilities, gives usage guidance, and ends with output format. 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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return JSON structure (findings array with fields like rule, severity, cwe, etc.) and covers operation, scope, exclusions, and alternatives. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the schema fully defines parameters. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 for OWASP Top-10 vulnerabilities using pattern matching, lists specific CWEs, and distinguishes itself from the sibling taint_analysis by noting it is for pattern-based audits. It leaves no ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly advises use for pattern-based security audit and recommends taint_analysis for data-flow-aware analysis. It also mentions skipping test files, providing practical guidance. However, it lacks broader when-not-to-use scenarios.

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