set_engine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'active for the current session,' hinting at session-scoped state mutation but does not clarify if the change is persistent, reversible, or what happens to previously enabled engines. It lacks crucial details like whether it overwrites or merges with existing settings, required permissions, or side effects.

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 concise with three sentences, no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary action and scopes the functionality. One sentence could be trimmed if schema already covers the parameter, but overall efficient.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, and the existence of many sibling tools (like set_profile, scan_code, check_secrets) for which interaction is unclear, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (success/failure), error conditions, or how session scoping works. A mutation tool with one parameter should provide more context about effects and boundaries.

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% with a single parameter documented as 'List of engine names to enable.' The description adds minimal value by restating this as 'list of engine names' and referencing list_engines for discovery. With complete schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds only marginal context beyond the schema.

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 sets which analysis engines are active for code scanning, using a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('analysis engines'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_engines by noting that available engines can be listed with that tool. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the scope of the session.

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 by indicating it accepts a list of engine names to enable, and references list_engines as a companion tool. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like set_profile, check_secrets, or other scanning tools. It does not specify prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use it.

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