scan_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool scans for security vulnerabilities and secrets and returns findings with severity, type, and remediation guidance. However, it does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the scan is static or dynamic, if the code is executed, network calls are made, or if the tool has any rate limits, performance impacts, or prerequisites. The description is adequate but leaves open questions about safety and performance.

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 concise two-sentence structure that front-loads the tool's primary purpose. It lists specific vulnerability types to set context and mentions the return format. It is efficient and does not contain filler, earning a high score, though it could be slightly improved by adding a brief usage hint.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose and return format but lacks details on behavior, parameter semantics, and usage context compared to siblings. With 26 sibling tools, more explicit differentiation would strengthen completeness. The description is functional but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not clarify how the 'engines' parameter interacts with the tool, what valid values for 'language' are, or how 'file_path' influences the scan. The description adds no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 'Scan source code for security vulnerabilities...' and lists specific vulnerability types (SQL injection, XSS, etc.) as well as hardcoded secrets. It also mentions the return type, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like scan_file or scan_directory that may focus on scanning a single file or a directory rather than arbitrary code content.

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 the tool is meant for scanning source code for vulnerabilities and secrets, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like scan_file (for a single file), scan_directory (for a directory), or check_secrets (for secrets only). No guidance is given on when not to use it, such as when scanning compiled code or non-source artifacts.

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