kasra_scan_file

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

Discloses that the tool reads local file content and sends it to the Kasra API for analysis, implying network communication and no modification. Also notes it runs code review rules. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; it does well.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with security warning and clear action. Efficient but could be slightly more compact without losing meaning.

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?

Covers main purpose and scope well. Output schema exists (not shown but noted) which likely explains return format. Missing parameter details but acceptable given simplicity of single param.

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?

Only one required parameter 'path' with no description in schema (0% coverage). Tool description does not specify path format, whether it can be a directory, or any constraints beyond type string. Minimal added value.

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?

Clearly states the tool scans a file/directory for security vulnerabilities, lists specific vulnerability types (SQL injection, XSS, secrets, misconfigurations), and supports all major languages. Distinguishes from sibling tools (health, kasra_get_rules) which serve different purposes.

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?

Implies usage for security scanning but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Sibling tools are given but no comparison or criteria for selection.

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