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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return status and gives no indication of side effects, required permissions, or operational behavior. For a scan tool, read-only intent is implied but never stated.

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, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the key action and output, but its brevity comes at the cost of omitting crucial details about parameters and usage.

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 the tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and any detail about the scan's scope or return structure beyond the status values. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool reliably.

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 does not compensate. Neither 'code' nor 'language' parameters are mentioned, leaving their purpose and constraints completely unexplained. The description adds zero semantic value for the parameters.

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 performs a security-focused scan and returns a categorical status (vulnerable | at-risk | secure). It defines the output distinctly, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like detect_antipatterns or risk_score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It simply states what it does without any context about preferred use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer suitability.

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