seed_security_guidance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently reveals the file creation behavior and the overwrite option via `force`, plus adds valuable context about the consuming plugin. It doesn't mention potential side effects beyond overwriting, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The description front-loads the primary action and includes necessary context about the plugin and force flag.

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, combined with high schema coverage and an output schema, is nearly complete. It explains the file's purpose and consumption but doesn't address template detection failure or other edge cases, so just shy of fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the description's mention of `force: true` essentially restates the schema's force property. No new semantic meaning is added beyond what's already in the input 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 generates a `claude-security-guidance.md` file at the repo root, with a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like `audit_security` or `list_templates`, so it lacks a differentiation statement.

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 seeding security guidance and includes a parameter tip about `force: true`, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives is given. The context about the plugin being consumed in-session suggests when it matters, but exclusions are absent.

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