security-check-passwords

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Check' but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist (e.g., logging), or required permissions. The parameter's effect is not explained beyond the schema.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It could be expanded to include more context without sacrificing conciseness, but it remains efficient.

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's security focus and lack of output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to define 'weak passwords', explain what policies are checked, or describe the expected output. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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% for the single parameter 'checkPolicy', which already describes its purpose. The tool description adds no additional meaning, 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 'Check for weak passwords and password policies' uses a clear verb-resource pair, indicating a security audit tool. It is specific enough to differentiate from many sibling tools like 'security-check-firewall' or 'security-audit-accounts', though it could be more precise about the scope (e.g., user accounts vs. system policies).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'security-audit-accounts' or 'generate-secure-password'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, common use cases, or exclusions.

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