scan_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full disclosure responsibility. It states that the scan is static, reveals the output as ranked findings with severity/CWE/OWASP tags, and clarifies that no server-side files are created. It falls short of mentioning rate limits, auth, or size constraints, but covers the core behavior well.

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 three sentences, each carrying information: action, output, and input method. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 tool with two well-schema'd parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return values, and usage. A minor gap is the lack of detail about the exact response structure, but the mention of tags and severity suffices for 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?

The schema already fully documents both parameters (content and filename with default). The description adds practical guidance that the code should be sent inline without requiring a file, reinforcing the content parameter semantics, which justifies going slightly above the baseline for 100% coverage.

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 opens with 'Statically scan a source file for security vulnerabilities using TASIE,' which precisely states the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings by noting the code is sent inline and no files are needed, clearly separating it from repo-wide or dependency scans.

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 instruction 'Send the code inline — no files need to exist on the server' provides clear invocation context, and the phrase 'source file' implies single-file use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool compared to siblings like scan_repo.

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