Scan a local repo for AI-built-app security problems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the detection categories, the shape of the result (counts + severity-ordered findings), and that secrets are redacted — an operationally important trait. It stops short of noting scan cost, file-count limits, or that nothing is written to disk.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, then a dense but useful enumeration of checks; the second sentence delivers the return contract and the redaction guarantee. The category list is long but each item is a distinct, decision-relevant signal, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden and does it well by summarizing return shape and ordering. What remains unsaid — error behavior on a missing/invalid path, whether large repos are truncated — is modest for a read-only scan tool.

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 path, limit, max_mb, and min_severity are already documented in structured form. The description adds no format or semantics for these (e.g., how min_severity interacts with the ordering, or what max_mb skips), which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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?

Specific verb (scans) plus a precisely scoped resource (a local project folder, with example frameworks) and an explicit enumeration of what it hunts for. The output contract ('returns counts plus findings ordered by severity') makes it unmistakable against the sibling triage_summary, which cannot be a scanner.

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 name and the path requirement, but the description never states when to reach for this versus triage_summary, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that the path must be locally accessible, or that it is a point-in-time static scan rather than a live check). Adequate context, no explicit routing.

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