security_check_ui5_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool scans for, it doesn't describe how it operates (e.g., static analysis, runtime checks), what output to expect, whether it modifies files, performance characteristics, or error handling. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 packs substantial information about what the tool does and what it looks for. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text or redundancy.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, as a security scanning tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention whether it's read-only, what format results come in, or any limitations - gaps that prevent a higher score.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, earning a baseline 4 for this dimension.

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 specific action ('Scan') and target ('UI5 XML/JS sources'), with explicit security risk categories listed (XSS, unsafe HTML injection, dynamic code execution, insecure redirects). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'security_check_javascript' by specifying UI5-specific sources rather than general JavaScript.

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 like 'security_check_javascript' or 'analyze_current_file'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or any explicit when/when-not scenarios.

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