Security

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

Annotations are sparse (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false) and provide little safety context. The description lists actions but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or limitations beyond scanning. No contradiction, but insufficient behavioral details.

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 concise sentences front-load the tool's purpose, followed by a compact enumeration of actions and parameters. No wasted words; every element adds value.

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 6 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description covers actions and key constraints but defers to the help tool for full docs. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving return values unexplained. Adequate but incomplete.

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%, yet the description adds significant meaning by listing parameter values per action (e.g., engine='heuristic'|'semgrep', format='json'|'sarif'). This compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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's purpose: 'Security scanning over the code knowledge graph.' It enumerates four specific actions (scan, report, suppress, rule_list) with their parameters, differentiating it from sibling tools like config, graph, query, and review.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention 'Use `help` tool for full docs' implies incomplete documentation but does not provide context for selection or exclusion.

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