Security Scan

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds crucial behavioral detail: 'Scanning is fully static and read-only — repository and image contents are parsed, never executed.' It also discloses that repos are shallow-cloned into a temporary directory, scanned, and deleted. This goes well beyond the annotations and reassures an agent about side effects.

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 well-structured with a clear opening line, bulleted target options, a compact summary of the scan process, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler. The front-loaded purpose and scannable list make it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with 18 parameters and a rich output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all target types, the scanning methodology, the static/read-only safety guarantee, and the return format. The existence of an output schema means the description need not detail the JSON structure. The description leaves no critical gap for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter with rich descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., package requires ecosystem when no launcher is named) and the auto-discovery behavior when no target is given. This contextual information helps an agent choose parameters correctly without re-reading the schema, though it doesn't describe individual parameters' formats or defaults beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Run a full AI supply chain security scan and return an AI-BOM.' It then enumerates the distinct target types (repo_url, config_path, image, sbom_path, package) and outlines what the scan does (extract dependencies, query OSV, assess config, compute blast radius). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like skill_scan or vector_db_scan, which target narrower scopes.

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 gives explicit guidance on how to select a target: 'Point it at a target with one of...' and explains the auto-discovery fallback when none is provided. It also clarifies the pairings of package with ecosystem and the mutual exclusivity of config_path and repo_url. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool versus siblings, leaving some inference to the agent.

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