go_vulncheck

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool modifies files, requires network access, or assumes pre-installation of govulncheck. As a scanning tool, it is likely non-destructive, but this is not explicitly confirmed, so the agent lacks important safety information.

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 sentence of 6 words, very concise and front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place by being clear, but could slightly expand to cover key behavioral aspects without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely sparse. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or practical usage context (e.g., whether it requires a Go module setup). The tool's complexity demands more context than provided.

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?

All 7 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's purpose. While not harmful, it does not enhance understanding of parameters like 'mode' or 'package'.

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 'Scan for known vulnerabilities using govulncheck' clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('scan') and resource ('known vulnerabilities') using govulncheck. It distinguishes itself among sibling tools like staticcheck (code quality) or go_test (testing), making it clear what this tool does uniquely.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as staticcheck for broader code issues or other Go tools. There are no prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or fallback tools mentioned, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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