Security Audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Static analysis" weakly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but nothing is said about scope (codebase vs. config), whether it writes reports, permissions required, or runtime cost.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. The terseness here reflects under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, since key operational detail is absent.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and only two parameters are involved. But with zero annotation coverage, zero parameter descriptions, and a large cluster of near-identical security siblings, the definition is not complete enough to select or invoke the tool confidently.

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% for both parameters. The description never mentions the required "path" or the "include_vendors" flag, so an agent cannot know what path means or what toggling vendors does.

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 states a verb ("Run") and a resource ("security-focused static analysis"), so the general purpose is discernible. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many close siblings such as security_scan, sql_injection_scan, xss_scan, config_security_check, or code_audit_phpstan, leaving the agent unable to tell what unique analysis this performs.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite an extremely crowded security-tool namespace. The agent is left to infer entirely which audit to pick.

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