security_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are severity-graded, that the tool uses zero LLM, and mentions suppression via malong-ignore or .ai-patterns.json. It doesn't detail return format or side effects, but this is reasonable context for a scan tool.

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 two sentences, starts with the main action and scope, and packs additional info (suppression, out-of-scope, zero LLM) into a structured list. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly scannable.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (5 params), the description covers the essential context: what patterns are scanned, exclusions, suppression, and the zero-LLM behavior. It doesn't describe return structure beyond 'severity-graded,' but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description mentions 'severity-graded' and suppression but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb ('Scan') and a concrete resource ('security patterns') followed by a detailed list of pattern categories (injection, XSS, secrets, CORS*, insecure compare). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like code_review or code_quality, which would target broader or different concerns.

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?

The description explicitly lists what is covered (injection, XSS, secrets, CORS*, insecure compare) and what is out of scope (SSRF/XXE/deserialization/auth), which gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternative tools directly, but the exclusions imply the boundary well.

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