check_vulnerability

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

Lists return fields (vulnerability status, severity, SWC id, fix recommendation) but does not disclose if it reads state, requires authentication, or handles errors. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but lacks depth.

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 efficient sentences: first defines purpose and output, second gives usage recommendation. No wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple check tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema. Lacks error handling info but is otherwise complete.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters. Description adds value by giving concrete examples of vulnClass values and labeling source as Solidity code, beyond schema metadata.

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?

Clearly states 'targeted check for a single vulnerability class' and provides specific examples (reentrancy, integer-overflow, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like audit_contract.

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?

Explicitly recommends use for 'quick spot-checks during development', implying it is not for comprehensive audits. Context with sibling tools reinforces differentiation.

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