security_check_javascript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool detects patterns but does not describe how it behaves: whether it returns a report, raises errors, modifies code, or has side effects. For a security tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of operational details is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Detect risky JavaScript patterns including eval, command injection, and prototype pollution') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (security analysis), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description's gaps in other areas keep it at an adequate but not fully helpful level.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description implicitly clarifies the 'code' parameter by specifying it analyzes JavaScript for security patterns. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type constraints, though it does not detail format or examples. With only one parameter, the description adequately compensates for the schema gap.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Detect') and resources ('risky JavaScript patterns'), and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on security rather than analysis, refactoring, or generation. It explicitly lists the types of patterns detected (eval, command injection, prototype pollution), making the scope unambiguous.

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. It does not mention sibling tools like 'lint_javascript_code' or 'validate_ui5_code' that might overlap in code analysis, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts (e.g., use for security audits vs. general linting). This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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