teeshield

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what the tool does (security scanning), what it returns (findings with severity levels and fix hints), and the scope of checks. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication requirements that might be relevant for a security tool.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first explains what the tool does with specific examples, and the second provides clear usage guidelines. Every element serves a purpose with no wasted words, and the most important information (the scanning purpose) 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?

Given the tool's complexity (security scanning with multiple configuration checks) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description does a good job explaining the tool's purpose and usage. However, it could provide more detail about the output format (beyond 'findings with severity levels and fix hints') and potential side effects of running the scan.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, such as explaining the practical implications of different policy presets or what 'verify_pins' actually entails.

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 specific action ('Scan an AI agent installation for security issues') and enumerates the exact resources checked (configuration aspects and installed skills). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'scan_mcp_server' by focusing specifically on agent security rather than server scanning.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when auditing an agent's security posture or before deploying an agent to production.' This provides clear context for application without needing to mention exclusions or alternatives, as the sibling tool serves a different purpose (server scanning).

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