security_access

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the session prerequisite and the seed/key exchange, but it omits important traits such as what ECU state is unlocked, failure/lockout behavior, and whether the operation is state-changing or reversible.

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 compact sentences and front-loads the service identifier and core action. It avoids repetition of schema fields, though phrases like 'odd level' are cryptic rather than self-contained.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a security-critical, state-changing operation with no annotations and 0% parameter-description coverage, the definition is minimally adequate but omits failure behavior and level-value semantics.

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 should compensate for the undocumented level parameter. It mentions 'odd level' and 'that level,' but does not clarify accepted values, the default of 1, or the odd/even UDS seed-key mapping, leaving the parameter only partially explained.

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 names the specific UDS service (0x27 SecurityAccess) and states the core action: request a seed and send the computed key. This is a clear verb-and-resource pair, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling diagnostic tools such as diagnostic_session_control.

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?

It provides one concrete prerequisite, 'Needs a non-default session,' which is useful usage guidance. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus related siblings like diagnostic_session_control or send_raw, nor does it describe when not to use it.

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