run_detectors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions that results are cached from initial analysis and returns findings with descriptions and source locations, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or any potential side effects.

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 concise with four sentences, each providing valuable information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds filtering details and caching behavior 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 has one required parameter and several optional filters, the description covers the main functionality. It mentions caching and return content. With an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains filtering by detectors, impact, confidence, and exclude paths, which maps to several parameters. However, not all parameters (like limit and offset) are explicitly mentioned, but pagination is implied by 'offset' in the schema.

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 it gets security findings from Slither's static analysis and mentions finding vulnerabilities, code quality issues, or informational findings. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools but the purpose is specific enough.

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 gives a clear use case ('Use this to find vulnerabilities...') and mentions filtering options, but does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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