find_taint_sinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a built-in sink registry merged with custom sinks from a YAML file, and it specifies the return format. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any performance implications, or required permissions, which are relevant for an analysis 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?

The description is a well-structured docstring with clear Args and Returns sections. It is concise, though the SonarQube comparison could be seen as slightly extraneous. Overall, it front-loads the core purpose and details efficiently.

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 single parameter and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides sufficient context: it explains the return format and the merging logic. No significant gaps remain for basic usage.

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 only parameter 'repo_name' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds 'Repository to analyse', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's type-only definition. This adds meaningful 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 uses specific verb 'find' and resource 'calls to known dangerous sink methods', clearly distinguishing from siblings like 'find_reachable_sinks' or 'find_taint_flows'. It also specifies the context (repository) and mentions merging built-in and custom sinks, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 for security analysis by referencing SonarQube's taint rules, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'find_reachable_sinks', 'find_taint_paths'). No when-not-to-use or comparative guidance is provided.

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