security_cve_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It labels the tool as '[SAFE]', but does not explain what that means (e.g., read-only, no modifications). No details on permissions, resource impact, or side effects are given.

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, front-loaded sentence with a safety label. It is concise and directly communicates the core action, though it could be more informative without losing brevity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the output looks like (e.g., findings format), required permissions, or runtime behavior. For a security scanning tool, more contextual information is expected.

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 schema has 1 parameter 'path' with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'on a filesystem path', which adds a clue about the parameter's purpose, but does not explain default, format, or constraints. The schema already has a default and required flag, so minimal added 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 verb ('run'), resource ('CVE vulnerability scan'), and scope ('on a filesystem path using Trivy'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like security_cert_check or security_port_audit by specifying CVE scanning.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context of sibling tools implies usage for filesystem CVE scans, but there is no mention of when not to use it or specific scenarios.

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