scan_agent_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns verdicts (ALLOW/WARN/BLOCK) and lists supported action types. It implies safety (pre-execution check) but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or detail side effects. The disclosure is adequate for a straightforward check tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists supported action types compactly. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and output verdicts, but lacks details on the verbosity parameter (though schema covers it) and does not describe the full response structure. With no output schema, the agent may lack understanding of what 'full' details include. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The description reinforces the tool's purpose but does not explain parameter semantics in more detail than the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs a 'Pre-execution security check for agent actions' and lists specific action types (bash, file_write, etc.), making the purpose and scope unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on pre-execution checks for agent actions.

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 is for pre-execution security evaluation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'evaluate_compliance' or 'fix_security'. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is implicit but not fully explicit.

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