generate_security_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states it runs multiple tools and produces a report, but does not disclose whether operations are read-only, potential side effects, or how the report is returned (format). This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity.

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: first sentence enumerates the tool's actions, second sentence provides usage context. No extraneous information; every part serves a purpose.

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 description communicates the tool's core function and context (first-pass triage) but omits details about output structure and behavioral safety, especially given the absence of output schema and annotations. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaning beyond the basic schema descriptions (session ID, module name with default). The tool's description does not explain how the module parameter affects the analysis. 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 states that it runs all security analysis tools and produces a consolidated report, listing specific checks (packing, suspicious API, anti-debug, section anomaly). It distinguishes itself from sibling individual tools by emphasizing a consolidated output and first-pass triage utility.

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 mentions 'useful as a first-pass triage,' which implies when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like individual analysis tools for detailed checks. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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