security_interactive

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

The description states it 'asks before' and 'shows options', indicating interactive behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens after the user responds (e.g., whether actions like fixes are applied), nor does it mention permissions or side effects. Given no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the key interactive aspect. However, it could be slightly more precise without adding length.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns after interaction. It mentions 'shows what will be scanned' and 'options', but does not describe the output format or how the agent should handle it. With no annotations, more completeness is expected.

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 already provides a description for the only parameter (dirPath), so this is the baseline. The description does not add new meaning beyond stating it is an absolute path, which is redundant with the schema.

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 identifies the tool as interactive ('Asks before guarding') and specifies the scan scope (OWASP Top 10, secrets, privacy, dependencies), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like audit_security. However, the term 'guarding' is slightly vague and could better indicate that the tool performs a security scan.

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?

Usage context is implied (when an interactive security check is desired) but no explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like audit_security or detect_patterns. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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