scan_iac

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

Without any annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens if 'checkov' is not installed, whether the scan is read-only, or any performance/resource implications. The mention of 'checkov' is helpful but insufficient 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 is very concise at two sentences, efficiently stating purpose and a key dependency. However, it could be improved by front-loading the IaC focus more explicitly, though it remains effective.

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 tool's complexity (IaC scanning with an external tool dependency) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain output format, error behavior if 'checkov' is missing, or scanning scope. Critical gaps for informed invocation.

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 already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond repeating that it uses checkov; thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as scanning Infrastructure as Code (Terraform, CloudFormation, Kubernetes) for misconfigurations, using the specific verb 'Scan' and resource types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'scan_code' or 'scan_secrets' which target other file types or concerns.

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 usage for IaC files and mentions a dependency ('checkov'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_code' or 'scan_all'. No use-cases or exclusions are stated.

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