run_security_scan

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

The description clearly indicates this is an 'audit' action, which implies a non-destructive review, and lists the specific areas checked. However, it does not disclose behavioral details beyond the audit scope, such as whether it modifies anything, requires special permissions, or produces a report. With no annotations to rely on, this is a moderate gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action verb and lists items efficiently without fluff. It is concise and easy to parse, though the list feels somewhat run-on and could be broken into clearer categories. Still, it earns its place.

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 covers the purpose but lacks critical context: no usage guidelines, no explanation of the boolean parameters, and no mention of what the audit returns or any side effects. With no output schema or annotations to fill these gaps, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the parameters scanConfig and scanSecrets at all. The audit list implicitly maps to these booleans (configurations and secrets), but the agent is left to infer the exact meaning and effect of each flag. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audits') and clearly enumerates the exact security concerns it checks: configurations, hardcoded secrets/API keys, exposed endpoints, CSRF tokens, and permissions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_vulnerability_scan or run_pentest_scan, which target different aspects of security.

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 when to use this tool based on the listed audit items (e.g., if you need to check for hardcoded secrets), but it does not explicitly state usage context or mention alternatives. There is no 'use this when...' or comparison to sibling scans, so guidance is only implicit.

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