bandit_check

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the fact that Bandit is the underlying scanner but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as severity reporting, exit behavior, or how results are returned. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 of eleven words, with no filler or redundant content. It is front-loaded with the key action 'Scan' and remains appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, which helps, but the description omits essential parameter semantics such as the meaning of changed_only and the default behavior when paths is null. An agent cannot confidently choose and populate the arguments without additional inference.

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%, and the description never mentions either parameter, paths or changed_only. The description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation but entirely fails to explain what these parameters mean or how they affect the scan.

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 uses the specific verb 'Scan' with the resource 'Python code' and the outcome 'common security problems', and names Bandit, making the core function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like ruff_check or ty_check, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'common security problems' implies the scanning use case and suggests this tool is appropriate when a Python security review is needed. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer Bandit over alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is only implied.

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