Sekrd Security Scanner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a 'full security scan' (implying comprehensive analysis), discloses execution time ('Takes 10-30 seconds'), and outlines the return content ('score, verdict, findings, and fix prompts'), which is valuable context beyond basic functionality.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and execution time—all in two efficient sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 complexity (security scanning with multiple outputs) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does well by explaining what it returns and the execution time. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential errors, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are common for such tools.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single 'url' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on URL formats or constraints), so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Run a full security scan') on a specific resource ('on a URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_scan' (likely retrieves existing scans) and 'list_findings' (likely lists findings). It provides a complete picture of what the tool does.

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 implies usage context through the mention of 'security scan' and the 10-30 second execution time, suggesting it's for security assessment with potential latency. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_scan' or 'list_findings', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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