Javaプロジェクトの脆弱性スキャン

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: it uses OSV-Scanner, returns JSON, orders by severity, and specifies report contents including CVSS score, severity level, fixed version, and summary. It does not discuss side effects or network requirements, but scanning is reasonably implied as a read-only analysis.

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?

Two sentences: the first covers the operation, tool, output format, and report contents; the second covers supported build tools. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the report contains and what input forms are accepted. It could mention edge cases like network access or empty vulnerability results, but nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that both Maven and Gradle are supported, but the schema already documents that project_path can be a directory or an absolute path to pom.xml/gradle.lockfile, so no substantial new meaning is added.

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 names a specific verb ('スキャン'), a specific resource (Java/Maven project dependencies), and the output (JSON vulnerability report ordered by severity). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like suggest_fix and explain_vulnerability by focusing on detection.

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?

It states what project types are supported (Maven pom.xml and Gradle gradle.lockfile) and what input is accepted (project directory or build file path), giving clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the siblings are clearly different downstream actions.

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