JAR/WAR実体の脆弱性スキャン

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that no build or code execution occurs, that identification is best-effort based on metadata, that completeness is always incomplete, and that zero findings do not guarantee safety. This is strong behavioral transparency, though it does not describe return format or pagination.

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 concise sentences, each adding value: the action, what it avoids, and critical result-interpretation caveats. The most important information is front-loaded, with no fluff or repetition.

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 lack of output schema, the description explains key limitations (coverage, incompleteness, no guarantee) that an agent needs to correctly interpret results. It does not detail the output structure, but the caveats about coverage and unidentifiable files imply the output contains these, which is sufficient for safe 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description does not add details beyond what the schema already states for artifact_path. It aligns with the schema's description of the parameter, but no extra semantics are provided.

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 scans entities inside JAR/WAR files or directories, explicitly distinguishing it from source-level scanning (scan_java_project) and noting it does not execute builds or Java code. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource type (JAR/WAR vs. source code), but there is no explicit mention of when to use this over scan_sbom or scan_java_project. The description does provide guidance on interpreting results (check coverage, unidentifiable files) but lacks explicit alternative routing.

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