security_report

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, yet the description adds nothing about what "gated" means, what access or auth is required, whether reports are persisted, or whether repeated calls create duplicates. For a mutation-flagged tool with zero annotation-free context, this is a real gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, but its brevity comes from omission rather than precision — the only content is a vague noun phrase, so nothing is effectively 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?

With no output schema, two required undocumented params, and mutation-style annotations, the description should carry substantial load but delivers one clause. Missing: what the output looks like, what "gated" requires, and what identifiers project/finding accept.

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 0% and both required parameters (project, finding) are constrained only by an opaque regex. The description never mentions either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to guess the identifier format and source.

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?

States a verb+resource pair ("Generate ... reports") and mentions a request template, but "gated technical/executive reports" is opaque jargon and the sentence never says what a report covers or how it differs from sibling security tools (security_triage, security_severity, finding_correct). An agent can guess it produces a report artifact but cannot tell which one it needs.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many security_* siblings. "Gated" hints at some precondition but never states it, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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