check_security

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers useful behavioral context: it states the tool is a read-only query ('Get', 'Returns'), gives the 0-5 score range, lists risk flags, and identifies the source as SkillsIndex static analysis. It does not describe error behavior or dependencies, but the core side-effect-free nature is clear.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds relevant information (score, risk flags, audit summary, source). No filler or 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?

The description adequately covers the tool's return value, but given no annotations and no output schema, a bit more context would help—for example, clarifying that either name or slug must be provided, or noting that this is a read-only lookup. The tool is simple, so this is not severely incomplete, but there are clear gaps.

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%, with both parameters already fully described in the input schema. The tool description adds no specific parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('security score and audit notes for a specific tool'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like get_tool (general tool info) and compare_tools (comparison). It also specifies the exact output scope, removing ambiguity.

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 when a user needs a tool's security assessment and audit details, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_tool or search_tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear but not fully spelled out.

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