scan_codebase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time vulnerability database lookups' and lists what the scan analyzes and returns, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when scanning large codebases.

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 well-structured with clear sections for what it analyzes and what it returns. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the bulleted lists could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value without repetition.

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?

For a 4-parameter security scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about what vulnerabilities are checked and what information is returned. However, it lacks details about behavioral characteristics, error conditions, and the format/structure of returned findings that would be important for an AI agent to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the schema, though it provides context about what the tool analyzes which relates to the 'categories' parameter. No additional syntax, format, or usage details are provided for parameters.

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's purpose as an 'AI-powered security audit' that 'analyzes code' for specific vulnerability types and 'returns findings' with detailed information. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'check_dependencies' by covering a broader range of security issues beyond just dependencies.

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 security auditing but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it distinguishes from 'check_dependencies' by covering more categories, it doesn't provide guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons to other security tools.

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