deep_analyzer_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only discloses a few behavioral traits: 'fail-closed' and 'intrafile evidence, not an authorization proof'. These are useful, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or output behavior. It adds some context beyond the schema but leaves many aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with two clauses—and front-loads the action. Every word earns its place, but the brevity leaves essential details missing, so it is efficient but not optimally informative.

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 that this is a security audit tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the exact meaning of 'workspace_path', prerequisites, or how the result relates to other tools. The caveats about fail-closed and non-authorization are helpful, but the agent lacks critical operational details.

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%, so the description must compensate for the parameter 'workspace_path', but it provides no explanation of what this parameter expects, its format, or its purpose. The agent has no additional information beyond the variable name, making it difficult to invoke correctly.

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 specific action ('Run the local fail-closed Semgrep deep profile') and a clear resource (Semgrep deep profile), with an additional qualifier about its scope ('intrafile evidence, not an authorization proof'). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scan_workspace or software_composition_audit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'intrafile evidence' hints at a single-file analysis scope, but it does not state conditions or mention sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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