neuron_security_scan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does substantial work by detailing exactly what is scanned and noting that findings are structured with severity levels. It doesn't disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether the scan makes network requests beyond reading response bodies, but the described behavior is otherwise transparent and consistent.

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 with no fluff: the purpose is front-loaded, the scan checklist is compactly enumerated, and the output is stated clearly. Every clause adds information; nothing is repeated from the schema or tool name.

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?

For a complex security-audit tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is thorough: it names the input, the broad categories of checks, and the nature of the return value. It is missing a few operational details such as whether the scan is read-only or whether the page must be fully loaded, but the core invocation context is clearly conveyed.

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 100% — the schema already documents tabId as 'Chrome tab ID to scan.' The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers the single parameter and the description gives context for the scan operation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Comprehensive security audit of a page.' It enumerates concrete scan targets (leaked secrets, localStorage, response bodies, security headers, CORS, mixed content, insecure forms, source maps, autocomplete) and states the return type, making it unmistakable what the tool does. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like neuron_seo_audit and neuron_a11y_audit by its security focus.

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 the tool is for security auditing a page, and the scan list makes the intended use fairly clear. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings such as neuron_audit_page or neuron_discover_apis, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., page must be loaded, requires network access).

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