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?

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it runs OSV-Scanner, returns a JSON report with package-level vulnerability details and summary. It does not mention side effects or authorization needs, but for a read-only scan tool this is adequate.

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 single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential details about output format and limitations. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It describes the input, process (scanner used), output format, and current limitation. No additional information is necessary for correct 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the path should be an absolute path, which is not in the schema. This extra detail improves parameter interpretation.

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 Java (Maven) projects for vulnerabilities using OSV-Scanner and returns a JSON report ordered by severity. It specifies the exact resource (Maven dependencies) and distinguishes from other tools by noting the current Maven-only limitation.

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 implicitly provides usage context by stating it works only with Maven (pom.xml), guiding agents not to use it for non-Maven projects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or list prerequisites.

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