scan_security_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states the action and leaves out key behavioral details: whether the scan is read-only, what output it returns, how it defines 'dangerous ports', or any AWS permissions required.

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 focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the key action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the scan returns, what defines a dangerous port, or whether there are any side effects, leaving an agent to guess at runtime behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'region' parameter is clearly described in the schema with an example. The description adds no parameter-specific details, so the baseline score 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Find') and a specific resource ('security groups') with a precise filtering criterion (dangerous ports open to the internet). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_iam or scan_s3_public_access, which target different AWS resources.

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?

Usage is implied: if an agent needs to find security groups exposing dangerous ports, this is the tool. However, the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and does not reference alternatives, relying solely on the tool name and sibling list to set context.

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