Many of the "Core Guidelines" are semantic requirements which are (provably) Undecidable, so even if tooling was created for them the tooling would necessarily have either false positives or false negatives (those are the only options, unless "both" counts as another option). In practice most of these are unaddressed, Microsoft understandably focused on checks which are never wrong and give actionable advice.
"Guideline support" does include libraries with classes that e.g. provide a slice which raises an exception on bounds miss, which is something, and it's certainly notable that the equivalently named C++ standard library feature is a foot gun† whereas the one in the guideline support library is not, so that's a good reason to adopt this. But VS does not in fact ensure you obey all the guidelines, it's very much a "best effort" approach even with that switched on.
† WG21 (The "C++ Standards Committee") seems to have concluded that because sometimes the fast way to do something is unsafe, therefore the unsafe way to do something must be faster... as if car executives noticed that 240mph crashes in their flagship sports car were often fatal and concluded that if they re-design their under-performing SUV so that the fuel tank explodes during any collision killing everybody aboard that'd improve its top speed...
Good point. Note that we can't necessarily tell it's an infinite loop, the constructive proof for this Undecidability reduces it to our old friend the Halting Problem, so we're in the land of the Busy Beaver.
"Guideline support" does include libraries with classes that e.g. provide a slice which raises an exception on bounds miss, which is something, and it's certainly notable that the equivalently named C++ standard library feature is a foot gun† whereas the one in the guideline support library is not, so that's a good reason to adopt this. But VS does not in fact ensure you obey all the guidelines, it's very much a "best effort" approach even with that switched on.
† WG21 (The "C++ Standards Committee") seems to have concluded that because sometimes the fast way to do something is unsafe, therefore the unsafe way to do something must be faster... as if car executives noticed that 240mph crashes in their flagship sports car were often fatal and concluded that if they re-design their under-performing SUV so that the fuel tank explodes during any collision killing everybody aboard that'd improve its top speed...