list_security_config

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It explains the return value (a dict with specific keys) and the data source (merged built-in + user-defined rules). It does not mention error conditions or permissions, but for a read-only listing tool with no parameters, this is sufficient.

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 (4 lines) and front-loaded, starting with the primary purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes meaning: what it returns, what it shows, when it's useful, and the exact output format. No superfluous text.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a typical use case. It leaves no significant gaps for the agent to guess.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter info (none needed), but it does explain the return structure, which adds value beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 it returns the active security configuration (sources, sinks, sanitizers) and specifies 'merged built-in + user-defined rules'. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on finding specific security issues (e.g., find_taint_flows).

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 provides a concrete use case ('useful for verifying that custom rules were loaded'), giving context for when to use. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the sibling tool names (e.g., find_reachable_sinks) imply different purposes, making the intended usage clear.

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