check_obfuscation_risks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the scanning action and return values but omits details like file system impact (read-only), path formats, or performance considerations.

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?

Two sentences efficiently state the action and return, with no redundant words. Front-loaded with key purpose.

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?

With a single parameter and existing output schema, the description is nearly complete—it covers inputs, actions, and outputs. Missing only minor behavioral details like read-only nature or path constraints.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds context by implying 'path' is a Python project directory. However, it does not explicitly explain the parameter, leaving ambiguity about file vs. directory or relative vs. absolute paths.

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 clearly states the tool scans a Python project for patterns that break obfuscation, lists specific patterns (eval/exec, etc.) and return values (severity counts, frameworks, preset), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on config generation or explanation.

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 implies usage for assessing obfuscation risks but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. siblings (e.g., before generate_pyobfus_config) or provide guidance on 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.