python_security

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the scanning operation (read-only), but does not describe side effects, permissions needed, or whether any destructive actions occur (e.g., with 'fix' parameter). It mentions the two sub-tools but lacks deeper behavioral context like order of execution or error handling.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. Every word adds value; no unnecessary fluff or 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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is very brief. It does not explain how bandit and pip-audit interact, the effect of 'fix', how severity filtering works, or what output formats entail. Important context is missing for effective tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters like 'fix', 'severity', or 'format' beyond the schema; it only provides a high-level purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema carries the detail.

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 scans for known vulnerabilities using bandit (code issues) and pip-audit (dependencies). It specifies the verb (scan), resource (vulnerabilities), and tools used, distinguishing it from siblings like nodejs_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?

Usage is implied by the tool name 'python_security' and the specific tools mentioned, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nodejs_security or other lint tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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