scan_security

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

No annotations are provided. The description only mentions scanning behavior and rough token counts for verbosity levels, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error cases. Insufficient for a secure scanning 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?

Two sentences with clear front-loaded purpose. The second sentence adds actionable usage guidance for verbosity. Efficient and focused, no 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?

No output schema exists; description does not explain return values or structure beyond vague 'actionable info' vs 'complete metadata'. Lacks details on result format, severity levels, or how to interpret output, making it incomplete for practical use.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds token count estimates and default verbosity behavior, but other parameters like engine and output_format are not explained in the description, missing opportunity to add value.

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 scans a file for security vulnerabilities. It implies single-file scope, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_project and scan_packages, but doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance on verbosity usage (~50, ~200 tokens) but fails to specify when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. No explicit context for tool selection.

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