sgraph_security_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does a solid job: it explains the inclusion rule ('only those with findings are included'), defines each dimension's meaning, and states that the return is JSON with a summary plus per-dimension breakdown. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or permissions, but 'Security overview' strongly implies a non-mutating audit.

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, then uses a scannable bullet list for the six dimensions, and closes with a one-line output summary. No sentence is wasted, and the structure helps an agent parse the behavior quickly.

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 is complete enough for an agent to know what the tool returns and which security aspects it covers, even without an output schema. It could be stronger by explaining how scope_path and model_id affect the results, but those fields are at least documented in the nested schema, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 description's prose never explains top_n, model_id, or scope_path, and the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage for the top-level parameter. The nested schema entries do contain descriptions for the individual fields, but the tool description itself does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining how these inputs affect the audit.

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 opens with a concrete resource: a security overview across six explicitly named dimensions, which is specific enough for an agent to recognize its function. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling sgraph_audit, but the security-specific focus and dimension list make its purpose reasonably distinct.

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 gives clear usage contexts: 'organizational security posture, audit preparation, risk prioritization.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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