ScanMalware.com URL Scanner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the tool's safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as similarity scoring logic, threshold interpretation, or output format. With annotations present, the lack of extra context here is acceptable, though not enriching.

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 terse sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It conveys the basic purpose but omits essential details about parameters and behavior. This is borderline under-specification, similar to a vague description, rather than a well-structured concise one.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and many sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'similar' means, how threshold affects results, or how it differs from similar tools. An output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description alone leaves significant gaps for a correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'by hash', which maps to content_sha256. It provides no meaning for limit, threshold, or exclude_exact_matches. These are left entirely to the schema's basic names and default values, offering little guidance beyond what a developer might infer.

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 'Find similar JS fingerprints by hash' uses a specific verb (find), resource (JS fingerprints), and method (by hash). It clearly conveys the core operation. However, it does not distinguish from similarly named siblings like 'get_jsfingerprint_similar' or 'search_js_fingerprint_by_fuzzy_hash', so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for JS fingerprint similarity (e.g., get_jsfingerprint_similar, search_js_fingerprinter2_similar), but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful caveat about availability ('if available') but does not explain what happens when analysis is missing (e.g., null vs. error) or other operational behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose immediately and clearly.

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 simple surface (one parameter, annotations, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on how this tool relates to the many AI-related siblings and does not clarify the meaning of 'if available' operationally, leaving some context gaps.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameter. It only restates that the tool works 'for a scan_id', which the schema already conveys via the property name and title 'Scan Id' – no added detail on format, source, or constraints.

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 a specific action (Get) and resource (AI analysis), and ties it to a scan_id. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish from related sibling tools like search_ai_classification or get_analyzer_results, so it misses the full 5.

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 usage when you have a scan_id and need AI analysis, but it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer. The 'if available' caveat hints at behavior but not selection criteria.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as whether scan_id must correspond to an existing scan, what happens if no results exist, or how the output is structured. This is a missed opportunity to add value beyond the structured fields.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words or fluff, which aligns with conciseness. However, the minimalism comes at the cost of useful context, so it is not a 5.

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 large number of sibling tools and the ambiguity of 'analyzer results', this description is incomplete. It does not explain what analyzer results are, how they relate to a scan, or when to prefer this tool over others like get_scan_result. The presence of an output schema doesn't mitigate the lack of decision-relevant context.

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?

The schema covers only the parameter name 'scan_id' with no description (0% schema description coverage). The description merely repeats 'scan_id' as part of the sentence but does not explain what a scan_id is, where to obtain it, or its format. The description should compensate for the schema's lack of detail but fails to do so.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a resource ('analyzer results for a scan_id'), which conveys the basic action. However, 'analyzer results' is ambiguous and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_scan_result or get_ai_analysis, which likely provide similar outputs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the function without any context about prerequisites (e.g., scan completion), expected use cases, or why an agent should choose this over similar get_* tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the word 'overview,' which hints at a summary-style response but provides no additional behavioral context—thus it does not exceed or contradict the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's action and subject. It contains no filler or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or parameters. The only minor gap is the lack of context about what constitutes 'analyzer statistics' or how this overview differs from neighboring statistics endpoints, but the straightforward use case is adequately covered.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries full parameter meaning. The description's mention of an 'overview' moderately implies a broad, parameter-less summary, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 'Get analyzer statistics overview' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('analyzer statistics'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this endpoint from closely related siblings like get_analyzer_results or other *_stats tools, and 'overview' adds only vague scope.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_analyzer_results or other statistics endpoints. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or explicit conditions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context—'metadata' suggests a lightweight response—but does not disclose details like pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. This is acceptable given the simplicity.

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 that communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter, metadata-only endpoint.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters), has strong annotations, and provides an output schema, which eliminates the need for the description to detail return values. Given these factors, the description is complete and adequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description correctly implies none are needed. Per rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4; the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 'Get API root metadata' clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (API root), and the expected output (metadata). This is specific and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which target the API root.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the name and description (to retrieve API root metadata), but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as API discovery.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the operation, such as what happens if scan_id is invalid or whether null results are possible. It does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and immediately communicates the core function.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with a rich output schema and complete annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks only minor contextual details like when the data might be absent, but those are likely covered by the output schema and sibling tool context.

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 0% and the description merely repeats the parameter name 'scan_id' without adding format, provenance, or examples. It confirms that the parameter identifies the scan, but this is already evident from the property name, so it adds little semantic value.

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 retrieves 'bot-protection detection' for a scan_id, using specific verb 'Get' and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_malware_by_scan or get_technologies_by_scan, which target different detection types.

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 usage when bot-protection data is needed for a scan, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_analyzer_results or get_scan_result. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., output structure or pagination), but it does not contradict the annotations. With comprehensive annotations, this is adequate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is a near-verbatim repeat of the title, adding little informational value. Still, it is concise and structured.

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 an output schema present, return values are covered. Annotations cover safety. Yet the description is too sparse to fully differentiate from many sibling stats/acapability tools. It lacks context about what 'capability stats' are, expected date ranges, or when to use this vs. get_latest_capabilities. This creates ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says 'by date,' which is a minimal hint about the scan_date parameter but provides no format, timezone, or semantic meaning of 'capability stats.' This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('capability stats') with a clear scope ('by date'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like get_latest_capabilities, so it misses the differentiation required for a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of scenarios where it is preferred, and no exclusions. It only states the basic operation.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no behavioral details such as what constitutes an event, any limits on results, or how it relates to clipboard stats or suspicious clipboard searches.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise, though it could be enriched with usage context without losing its tight structure.

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 simple one-parameter design and rich annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks context on when to use this tool over overlapping siblings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing guidance on alternatives lowers completeness.

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 0% for scan_id, and the tool description simply repeats 'for a scan_id' without explaining its format, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('clipboard events') scoped by 'scan_id.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_clipboard_stats by naming 'events' instead of 'stats,' but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling tools (e.g., get_clipboard_stats, search_suspicious_clipboard). The usage context is entirely implied by the name and parameter, with no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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

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

The annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the bare statement, such as whether stats are global or per-scan, how data is aggregated, or any limitations. The description thus fails to enhance the agent's understanding of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 short sentence with no redundant wording or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a simple action.

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 availability of an output schema, the description need not list return fields, but it still leaves the meaning of 'clipboard statistics' ambiguous. It does not clarify whether the data is aggregated globally, time-bound, or scoped to specific scans, nor does it relate to the sibling get_clipboard_events tool. This lack of contextual grounding makes the description insufficient on its own.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the calibration baseline, a description is not required to explain parameters when none exist. The absence of parameter documentation is acceptable.

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 'Get clipboard statistics' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (clipboard statistics), but it is essentially a verbatim restatement of the title. It fails to specify what statistics are included or how they differ from the sibling tool get_clipboard_events, making it minimally clear but somewhat vague.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_clipboard_events or search_suspicious_clipboard, nor does it state any contextual prerequisites or conditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations and schema provide, such as return behavior, potential empty results, or dependency on scan validity.

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, direct sentence with no waste, making it highly concise. However, it is under-specified for a tool that could benefit from brief context, though the simple structure is not a penalty by itself.

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's low complexity (one parameter), the output schema, and strong annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, and does not clarify what CPEs are or where scan_id comes from, leaving gaps that structured fields cannot fully fill.

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 merely repeats 'scan_id' without explaining its meaning, format, or how to obtain it. The parameter name suggests it is an identifier, but no additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema's name.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('CPEs') with a specific scope ('for a scan_id'). It distinguishes this tool from the many sibling get_*_by_scan tools by specifying the CPE resource, which is unique among them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_cpe or other get_*_by_scan tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

Behavioral safety is already declared by annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as what the statistics represent or any data-range limitations. It contributes nothing beyond the annotations.

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 sentence but is under-specified. It provides no useful information beyond restating the tool name, so it is not effective conciseness; it lacks substance.

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?

Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description fails to explain what CPE refers to, what statistics are returned, or how this tool relates to sibling gaps. The agent cannot make an informed choice about using this tool.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.

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 'Get CPE statistics' is essentially a verbatim restatement of the title 'Get CPE Stats'. It does not provide any scope or distinguishing details, making it a tautology rather than a meaningful explanation of what the tool does.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternative stats endpoints like get_analyzer_stats or related CPE tools such as get_cpe_by_scan and search_cpe.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations state, such as scope constraints, rate limits, or output size considerations.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose, but it may be under-specified rather than appropriately sized for the task.

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?

While the tool is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, the description lacks enough detail to distinguish it from the many CT-related sibling tools. It does not clarify what specific CT data is returned or when to choose this tool over similar ones.

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. The 'domain' parameter is only mentioned as 'for a domain' with no format, example, or constraints. The description adds negligible meaning over the bare schema field.

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 states it retrieves certificate transparency data for a domain, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling CT tools like get_ct_dns_records or get_ct_timeline, making the exact scope of 'certificate transparency data' unclear.

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 alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what data is returned, historical scope, or rate limits.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema and rich annotations, the description leaves 'CT DNS records' undefined, which could confuse agents. However, the simple one-parameter design and annotations partially compensate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate for the sole parameter. It only repeats that the parameter is a domain, adding no format, examples, or constraints.

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('CT DNS records') for a given domain. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ct_certificates and get_ct_domains_by_ip by targeting DNS records specifically.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling CT-related tools. The description only states what it does without suggesting alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic function, such as result pagination, rate limits, or typical response format. It does not contradict annotations, but provides zero additional transparency.

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 clear sentence, appropriately concise for a simple tool with one parameter. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it is arguably too terse to be fully informative.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations are strong, the description is too minimal to provide complete context. It does not explain what 'CT domains' are, how results are scoped historically, or how this differs from the many adjacent CT-related tools. Given the tool's simplicity, a more descriptive explanation would be expected for an agent to invoke it 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It only implies that ip_address is an IP address, but does not specify IPv4 vs IPv6, whether CIDR is allowed, or any format requirements. The phrase 'on an IP address' adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 finds CT domains on an IP address, using a specific verb and resource. It is not a pure tautology but closely mirrors the title. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_ct_certificates or get_ct_dns_records, but the resource 'CT domains' is reasonably distinct.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_by_ip or other get_ct_* tools. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as how similarity is determined, pagination, or limitations, so it provides minimal value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It effectively communicates the core purpose in the minimum possible space.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with output schema present, the description is minimally viable. However, it does not clarify what 'similar CT domains' means operationally (e.g., same issuer, or overlapping certificates), which could lead to incorrect expectations.

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?

There is one parameter 'domain' with 0% schema coverage, but the description explicitly mentions 'for a domain', reinforcing the parameter's meaning. No additional format or constraints are described, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 states the specific action 'Find similar CT domains' with a clear input 'for a domain'. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling CT tools like get_ct_domains_by_ip, so it misses the top bar.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool among many similar CT getters.

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

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

The description only restates what the tool does without adding behavioral context. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description does not elaborate on what a 'timeline' includes, ordering, date ranges, or any other behavioral traits. It adds no value beyond the title.

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, clear, and front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It earns every character and is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, has an output schema, and is accompanied by safety-related annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, making it minimally viable but not fully complete for a tool with a large sibling family.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'domain' with no description (0% coverage). The description's phrase 'for a domain' only repeats the parameter name and does not add meaningful semantics such as expected format, examples, or constraints. The parameter meaning is self-evident from its name, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-based documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'CT certificate timeline' for a domain. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ct_certificates by focusing on a timeline rather than the certificates themselves.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_ct_certificates or get_domain_history. It lacks any mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparison with related tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'paginated' as a behavioral trait, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like whether results are ordered, what happens with no scans, or the meaning of 'historical' in terms of time range.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose. It avoids redundancy with the title and annotations, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and the parentheses efficiently add the pagination detail.

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?

The output schema and annotations provide substantial structured context, so the description need not explain return values or safety. However, it lacks guidance on alternatives, expected data volume, or pagination behavior, making it only minimally sufficient for a list-returning endpoint among many similar tools.

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?

The schema has 3 parameters (domain, page, limit) with 0% description coverage in the description. The word 'paginated' hints that page and limit exist, but the description does not explain the meaning of 'domain', why 'limit' is capped, or how page indexing works. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('historical scans for a domain') and a pacing qualifier ('paginated'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_domain_scans (likely current scans) and get_domain_stats by focusing on historical data and pagination.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, contrast with get_domain_scans, or suggest scenarios for historical data retrieval. The mere existence of a functional description implies usage but does not clarify edge cases.

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

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'recent' scoping behavior, indicating a time-limited result set, but does not define 'recent' or disclose any other behavioral traits like rate limits or response pagination.

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 concise at just seven words, with no filler or redundancy. However, it leans toward under-specification rather than being optimally informative, so it loses one point for not adding even small clarifying details about 'recent' or parameter 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 three parameters and zero schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without guessing the meaning of 'limit' and 'status'. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but parameter semantics and the definition of 'recent' remain ambiguous.

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%. The description implicitly covers the 'domain' parameter via 'for a domain', but 'limit' and 'status' are left completely unexplained. No added meaning is provided for these fields, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Get recent scans for a domain' with a specific verb (get), resource (scans), and domain scope. It distinguishes itself from generic scan listing tools in the sibling set by focusing on a domain, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other scan-related tools such as get_recent_scans or search_scans. The 'for a domain' phrase implies domain-specific usage, but there are no explicit usage conditions or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations—no mention of what data is aggregated, time range, or response format.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured but somewhat underspecified, which is a trade-off.

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 is part of a large family of stats tools with an output schema, the description is too vague. It does not clarify what 'summary statistics' include or how this tool differs from closely related ones like get_analyzer_stats or get_ip_stats.

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?

The schema has only one parameter 'domain' with no description (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. The description merely restates 'for a domain' and does not explain expected format, acceptable values, or meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 action (Get) and resource (summary statistics for a domain), making it clear what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this from the many other get_*_stats sibling tools, which all share a similar pattern.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_domain_history or get_ip_stats. No context, exclusions, or prerequisites are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., return format, rate limits, or whether it returns the image itself vs. metadata). It merely restates the tool's primary function without providing new information.

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 filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and every word serves a purpose.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics, making it not fully complete on its own. However, annotations and output schema compensate for some transparency and return value expectations.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'scan_id' by name without explaining its format, semantics, or constraints. Saying 'for a scan_id' adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name; it does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('favicon metadata') with a specific scope ('for a scan_id'). It is direct and unambiguous, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_by_favicon or get_favicon_stats, which also deal with favicons.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites beyond scan_id, or recommended scenarios. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing when it is the right choice.

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

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the implied read operation, which is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The annotations already declare the safety profile, so the description's lack of additional context is acceptable but not enriching. No contradiction.

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 three-word sentence, using no unnecessary words. It is maximally concise for a simple no-parameter stats endpoint.

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?

The tool is a no-parameter getter with a likely rich output schema, but the description leaves 'statistics' undefined—no indication of scope (global, per-scan), time range, or categories. For a sibling-heavy context, this may lead to confusion with other stats endpoints. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but the semantics of 'favicon statistics' could be clearer.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (0 required, 0 total), and the schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the 4 baseline applies due to zero params.

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 names the action 'Get' and the resource 'favicon statistics', clearly indicating a read operation for statistical data about favicons. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling stats tools like get_screenshot_stats or get_cpe_stats beyond the resource name, and 'statistics' is left unspecified.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or related search tools such as search_by_favicon or search_favicon_mmh3. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., return format, uptime details, auth requirements), but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 of five words, with no wasted content and the key information front-loaded.

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 simple health-check tool with zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description is fully adequate. The low complexity and structured metadata fill all gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 'Get API health status.' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('API health status'), clearly distinguishing it from other get_* tools that target specific subsystems like get_js_fingerprinter2_health or get_scan_result.

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 use when checking API health, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_js_fingerprinter2_health. The context is clear enough for a generic health check, but no exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or output-specific caveats. It merely restates the tool's purpose without elaborating on side effects or dependencies.

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 redundant information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too sparse to fully contextualize the tool within the extensive sibling set. It lacks usage context and parameter elaboration, leaving an agent without enough information to select this tool confidently over other scan-related data retrieval options.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only repeats the parameter name ('scan_id') without explaining its format, origin, or constraints. This provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema structure, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 function: 'Get IDS alerts for a scan_id.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (IDS alerts), and the parameter is explicitly mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other scan-related data, such as get_scan_result or get_malware_by_scan.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preferred contexts, exclusions, or relationships to other tools in the sibling set. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the large number of similar get_* tools.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds only 'paginated', which is redundant with the page and limit parameters in the schema. No additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, rate limits, scope of statistics) is provided.

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 filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose. However, the extreme brevity leaves out necessary details, so it sacrifices substance for conciseness.

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?

The tool has three parameters and an output schema, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not specify the scope of 'IP statistics', what data is returned, or how this tool fits among the many sibling tools. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the core semantics are still missing.

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 explain what 'ip_address' means, what statistics are returned, or how 'page' and 'limit' control pagination. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource (IP statistics) and the action (get), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not specify what kind of statistics are included, and there is no differentiation from sibling tools like get_domain_stats, though it is distinct from IP-specific lookups like search_by_ip.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The mention of pagination hints at a large dataset but does not explain when to choose this over other IP-related tools or how it differs from them.

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

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. It does not disclose any additional traits such as output format, error conditions, or rate limits.

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 that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It earns its place by stating the tool's purpose with no filler or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the minimal description is partially sufficient for a simple read-only retrieval. However, it omits contextual details like what JARM signatures are or any prerequisite conditions for scan_id, making it slightly incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 0% and the description only restates the parameter name ('scan_id') without adding meaning. It does not clarify the format, expectations, or how the scan_id relates to the returned data, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action (Get), the resource (JARM signatures), and the scope (for a scan_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_by_jarm or get_jarm_stats by specifying the retrieval context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is used when a scan_id is available, but it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools such as get_jarm_stats or search_by_jarm.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—it does not explain what 'statistics' denotes (e.g., time range, aggregation level, or global vs. per-scan scope). This leaves the agent without useful operational expectations.

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 filler or redundancy. It clearly states the tool's action and target. It is not 5 because it lacks additional structure (e.g., breaking down what 'statistics' includes) that would enhance utility without adding excessive length.

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 no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify what specific JARM statistics are provided (e.g., counts, distributions, global aggregates), and the abundance of sibling stats tools makes this ambiguity more consequential. The description could be improved with a brief mention of the data scope.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics that do not exist. The simplicity of the interface is fully captured by the schema.

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 'Get JARM statistics' clearly identifies the verb (Get) and resource (JARM statistics), distinguishing it from siblings like get_jarm_signatures or search_by_jarm. However, it does not elaborate on what 'statistics' encompasses, leaving some ambiguity about the exact nature of the data returned.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_jarm_signatures or get_analyzer_stats. Given the large number of sibling tools, the lack of any comparative context or usage scenarios makes it difficult for an agent to decide when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only 'by ID', which is a scope constraint but not a behavioral disclosure (e.g., whether optional flags change the response, or what happens on not-found). No contradiction exists, but the added context is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and to the point, though the content is sparse. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but it is not overly verbose.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, optional flags), an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the tool has many close siblings, and the description does not clarify what a 'fingerprint' includes, how the optional flags affect results, or when a caller would choose this over search/get source variants. The minimal text leaves the agent under-informed.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies fingerprint_id's role ('by ID') but says nothing about include_functions or include_http_headers. These two optional booleans could alter the response, and without explanation the agent must guess.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('JS fingerprint'), and key scope ('by ID'), making it a singular lookup. It is distinct from siblings like get_jsfingerprint_source or get_js_fingerprints (plural), though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling fingerprint tools (e.g., get_jsfingerprint_source, search_js_fingerprint_by_hash), the description does not explain that this is for fetching a full fingerprint object by its ID, nor does it mention any exclusions or fallbacks.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which inform the agent of the safe, read-only nature. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as what is counted, aggregation details, or any filtering effects. It merely restates the tool's name.

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 redundant wording. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, though it still functions as a clear one-line summary.

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?

The tool has a simple schema with optional date parameters, and an output schema exists. Despite this, the description does not explain what 'bundle statistics' are, how they are computed, or how the date range affects results. The agent is left with an ambiguous mental model of the tool's behavior.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (from_date, to_date) but no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention these parameters or explain their purpose, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names. The description should have noted that the tool returns stats for a date range.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('JS fingerprint bundle statistics'), which matches the tool name and conveys the basic function. However, it does not specify what 'bundle statistics' includes or how this differs from sibling stats tools like get_jsfingerprint_library_stats, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to the many sibling statistics tools. It does not mention that it is for bundle-specific statistics, nor does it suggest alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is entirely implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide—it merely states the operation. No extra context like response format, rate limits, or result scope is disclosed.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. No filler or redundancy; it earns its place by clearly stating the operation and key input.

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 large number of sibling tools and the presence of an optional parameter, the description is too sparse. It doesn't clarify what JS Fingerprinter2 results are, how they differ from other JS fingerprint tools, or what include_detailed_events controls. The output schema and annotations help, but the description alone is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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 0% and the description mentions only scan_id, not include_detailed_events. It provides minimal semantic value for the primary parameter but fails to explain the purpose or effect of the optional parameter, leaving an important part of the interface undocumented.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'JS Fingerprinter2 results' for a given scan_id. It is specific about the operation and scope, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_jsfingerprint or get_js_fingerprints.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not the context in which it should be selected. With many similar sibling tools, this leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the title. It does not explain what 'coverage' means, what data is returned, or any potential caveats.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, but it merely restates the tool title ('Get JS Fingerprinter2 Coverage') without adding substantive information. It is concise in length but lacks informative content.

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?

The description is too sparse to fully contextualize the tool. It does not clarify what 'coverage' refers to, making it difficult for an agent to judge when this tool is appropriate, especially given the large number of similar fingerprint-related tools.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. According to the rubric, a no-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description does not need to add parameter information.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Get') and a distinct resource ('JS Fingerprinter2 fingerprint coverage'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like stats, health, or fingerprints. However, 'coverage' is not explained, leaving some ambiguity about the exact purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools such as get_js_fingerprinter2_stats or get_js_fingerprinter2_health.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the tautological 'health check'—no mention of rate limits, auth, or what status is returned. It merely restates what the tool name implies.

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?

One short sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the action. Efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 zero-parameter health check with an output schema (not shown), the description is sufficient. It lacks any detail about response semantics, but the output schema covers that. It also doesn't clarify what 'health' means, but for a simple endpoint this is acceptable.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuous at 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly has no need to explain parameters. It does not add meaning but is not required to.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('JS Fingerprinter2 health check'), making the action clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_health' or explain what a health check entails, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus generic 'get_health' or other JS Fingerprinter2 endpoints. The description is purely declarative and does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds zero behavioral context, such as what statistics are returned, aggregation level, or any caveats, beyond what the annotations provide.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is not appropriately sized for the ambiguity because it conveys no more information than the tool's title.

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 sits among ~100 siblings including many stats tools, this description provides no contextual distinction. It is completely inadequate for selecting this tool correctly over alternatives like get_analyzer_stats or get_jarm_stats.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to add regarding parameter semantics.

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 'Get JS Fingerprinter2 stats' is essentially the title repeated verbatim. It uses a generic verb and the resource name but provides no scope or differentiation from sibling stats tools like get_analyzer_stats or get_jsfingerprint_library_stats.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scan_id scoping but no extra behavioral context (e.g., what 'prevalence' means or any limitations). This is a neutral score given annotation coverage.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and communicates the essential purpose efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), so the description meets the minimum viable threshold. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not clarify what 'prevalence' means, making it incomplete for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only repeats 'for a scan_id' without explaining what scan_id is or its format. For a single parameter, the name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema details.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('JS fingerprint hash prevalence') scoped to a scan_id. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_jsfingerprint_similar and get_jsfingerprint_similarity_counts by focusing on 'prevalence'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many related JS fingerprint tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the title, such as time-range filtering, aggregation semantics, or how min_count affects results. It does not contradict annotations, but it also provides zero incremental value.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it is under-specified and essentially restates the tool title. While concise, it fails to earn its place by adding any new information, making it closer to a tautology than effective conciseness.

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 existence of an output schema and rich annotations, the tool is not entirely devoid of context, but the description itself is insufficient. With many similar 'get_*_stats' siblings and a 0% schema coverage, the description leaves major gaps about what 'library stats' means and how parameters shape the query. It is a minimum-viable description at best.

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 explain any of the three parameters (to_date, from_date, min_count). With no documentation in either schema or description, the agent cannot infer what these parameters mean or how to set them.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('JS fingerprint library statistics'), but it is ambiguous what 'library' refers to (JavaScript libraries vs the fingerprint library itself). It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_jsfingerprint_bundle_stats or get_jsfingerprint_similarity_counts, which also provide statistics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about typical use cases. It is a single sentence with no usage context, failing entirely to help an agent decide when to invoke it.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as the meaning of the include_* flags or how results are scoped, beyond restating the scan_id parameter.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It earns its place but is so brief that it misses opportunities to add clarifying detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Between the descriptive tool name, the one-line description, the rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the tool is minimally viable. However, the lack of guidance on optional parameters and the absence of usage context relative to sibling tools make it incomplete for nuanced decisions.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies scan_id's role but says nothing about the three optional boolean parameters (include_functions, include_http_headers, include_vectors_info), leaving their semantics fully to the reader's inference from their names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('JavaScript fingerprints') scoped by 'scan_id', making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely related siblings like get_jsfingerprint or get_js_fingerprinter2, so it loses a point.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to prefer this tool over the many JS fingerprint search/retrieval siblings, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already convey that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as how similarity is computed, whether results are paginated, or the effect of the threshold parameter. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also fails to enrich the agent's understanding.

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 sentence, which is superficially concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks necessary operational details, making it more of a tautological placeholder than a genuinely concise explanation. True conciseness would convey key information efficiently, which this does not.

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's complexity (5 parameters, output schema, many sibling tools), a single sentence is grossly insufficient. The description does not explain expected inputs, output structure, or how it relates to the broader API. It fails to provide the contextual groundwork needed for correct invocation, especially without any parameter descriptions.

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 explain any of the five parameters (limit, offset, threshold, fingerprint_id, exclude_same_scan). While the schema provides parameter names and types, the description adds no meaning—for instance, it does not clarify what 'threshold' controls or how 'exclude_same_scan' affects results. This leaves the agent without essential operational detail.

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 'Find similar JS fingerprints' clearly states the action (find) and resource (JS fingerprints), giving a basic understanding of the tool's purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from many siblings with similar names like search_js_fingerprint_by_fuzzy_hash or search_js_fingerprinter2_similar, so it lacks the specificity to stand out.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, preconditions, or exclusions. With numerous related search tools available, this lack of usage direction leaves the agent uncertain about the appropriate scenario for this tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral information beyond the title. It does not explain the effect of threshold or max_count, nor does it describe the shape of the returned counts.

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 concise but under-specified; it is a single tautological sentence that adds no information beyond the title. It is not a case of efficient communication but rather missing content.

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 large set of sibling tools and the terse description, the tool is not adequately defined. The output schema and annotations provide some structure, but the description fails to clarify the tool's unique role, parameter semantics, or selection criteria, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to compensate by explaining the parameters, but it does not mention fingerprint_id, threshold, or max_count at all. The agent cannot infer what these parameters mean or how they affect the output.

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 restates the tool's name/title without explaining what a 'similarity count' is or how it relates to the fingerprint. It does identify a specific verb and resource, but the resource term is opaque, so it fails to convey the tool's actual function in a way that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_jsfingerprint_similar.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool relative to its many siblings. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or any selection criteria, leaving the agent to guess.

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

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description fails to clarify what 'source' means (e.g., raw JavaScript, metadata) or any output format details, which is a gap given the tool's purpose.

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 one-sentence description is brief but under-specified. It provides no informative content beyond the tool's name, making it inefficient rather than concise. A good concise description still carries essential context.

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's context among many similar siblings and a single parameter, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, differentiation, and parameter semantics, and does not leverage the output schema to enhance understanding. The agent cannot reliably infer when and how to use this tool.

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?

The input schema has one required integer fingerprint_id with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain this parameter. The name 'fingerprint_id' is somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional meaning is provided, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Get JS fingerprint source.' is clear about the resource but is essentially a restatement of the title. It does not specify scope (e.g., by fingerprint_id) or differentiate from siblings like get_jsfingerprint or get_js_fingerprints, so it lacks the specificity needed for a 4 or 5.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many similar fingerprint-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context to select it appropriately.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the title, such as what the inventory contains, whether results are aggregated, or how filters affect output.

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 short sentence and is easy to scan, but it essentially restates the tool title. It is concise in length but lacks substantive content, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain the inventory's meaning, the role of the optional filters, or how this relates to other JS fingerprint tools. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and many siblings, this is 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% and the description does not mention the two parameters (library, min_count). The parameter names hint at their purpose, but the description adds no meaning about how they filter or shape the inventory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a resource ('JS fingerprint library inventory'), giving a basic sense of the operation. However, it does not clarify what 'inventory' returns or how it differs from sibling tools like get_jsfingerprint_library_stats or search_js_fingerprint_by_library, so purpose is only moderately clear.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools (e.g., get_jsfingerprint_library_stats, search_js_fingerprint_by_library). The description gives no context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, return format, or relationship to other segment-related endpoints. It merely restates what the schema already implies.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. The single sentence efficiently conveys the core function, though it sacrifices detail that is captured in other dimensions.

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 large number of sibling tools and the presence of multiple parameters, the description is too sparse to support confident tool selection and correct invocation. It does not explain pagination, script_url filtering, or why this tool should be used over similar segment retrieval tools. The output schema helps with return values, but not with usage context.

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 only mentions scan_id. It leaves limit, offset, and script_url without any explanation of their purpose or role. With such low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 identifies the operation as 'Get' and the resource as 'JS segments', scoped by scan_id. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings like get_js_segments_suspicious or search_js_segments_by_hash, though the scan_id scope provides some differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what the tool does without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools that might be more appropriate in certain scenarios.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context—such as what 'suspicious' means, filtering logic, pagination behavior, or any consequences—beyond the bare fact that it returns segments.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it omits details that would improve utility; the structure itself is clean and direct.

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 4 parameters and multiple sibling variants, this one-liner is incomplete. It fails to define 'suspicious', explain how it differs from get_js_segments_by_scan or get_js_segments_unknown, or provide enough context for effective use, despite the existence of an output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions scan_id implicitly but says nothing about limit, offset, or min_risk_score. The meanings of these parameters are left to inference from their names, which is insufficient for precise invocation.

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 'Get suspicious JS segments for a scan_id' clearly identifies the action (Get) and resource (suspicious JS segments) and mentions the key input (scan_id). However, it does not differentiate this tool from its siblings like get_js_segments_by_scan or get_js_segments_unknown.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or reference to sibling functions, leaving the agent without context for selecting this endpoint.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the core purpose, such as what 'unknown' classification implies or how pagination behaves.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and communicates the essential purpose immediately.

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?

Even with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't define what makes segments 'unknown', explain the pagination parameters, or provide context for choosing this tool over related ones like get_js_segments_by_scan or get_js_segments_suspicious.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions scan_id, leaving limit, offset, and min_code_length completely unexplained. This fails to clarify their meaning or usage.

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 retrieves unknown JS segments for a scan_id, using a specific verb and resource. The term 'unknown' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_js_segments_by_scan and get_js_segments_suspicious, though it doesn't elaborate on what 'unknown' means.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when 'unknown' segments are relevant or how they differ from suspicious or all segments.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'latest' temporal scope, but this is largely captured by the name. No additional behavioral details such as return structure or rate limits are provided, but with annotations present, this is acceptable.

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 that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler and every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient.

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's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, output schema present), the description is adequate. However, it could be more complete by clarifying what 'capability stats' refers to or explicitly distinguishing from 'get_capabilities_by_date'. The output schema likely covers return details, so this is a minor gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully defines the parameter space. Per the guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'latest capability stats', which identifies what the tool does. It is distinct from the sibling 'get_capabilities_by_date' by emphasizing 'latest', but it does not explicitly contrast with that alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling 'get_capabilities_by_date' or explain how 'latest' relates to the date-based tool, leaving the usage context unclear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the operation is known to be safe. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond restating the tool's name, such as what 'malware details' includes or any scan dependencies.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target succinctly. No wasted words or vague filler.

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?

The tool has one parameter, an output schema, and good annotations, so the minimalist description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any explanation of the nature of malware details or how they relate to a scan, which is left entirely to the name and schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only says 'for a scan_id' which merely restates the parameter name. It adds no meaning about what a scan_id is or any format or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'malware details' tied to a scan_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_yara_by_scan or get_ocr_by_scan, which target different data types.

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 context is implied by the tool name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_scan_reports or get_yara_by_scan. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what data is aggregated, whether results are global or scoped, or any limitations. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them.

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 only three words, but they merely echo the title. This is under-specification rather than concise clarity; the sentence does not earn its place because it provides zero informational value beyond the 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?

Despite having no parameters and rich annotations, the description fails to clarify what 'malware stats' actually refers to in this system. With many sibling stats tools, this terse description is insufficient for an agent to select the correct tool or understand the returned data.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. No deduction is warranted.

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 'Get malware stats' restates the title exactly, providing a verb and resource but no specifics about what constitutes 'malware stats' or how this differs from sibling tools like get_analyzer_stats or get_jarm_stats. It is a tautology that adds no distinctive meaning.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other get_*_stats tools in the sibling list. There is no context about the intended use case, prerequisites, or alternative tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the operation, such as whether the scan must be completed, what data is included in the netlog, or any rate limits. The minimal description does not exceed what annotations already provide.

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 clear sentence with no redundant phrasing, making it highly concise and easily parsable.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks contextual guidance about prerequisites or relation to sibling tools. Given the existing annotation and output schema, the description is adequate for a basic invocation but incomplete for understanding when to choose it.

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?

The input schema has no description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It merely echoes the parameter name 'scan_id' without explaining format, constraints, or how to obtain a valid scan_id. This adds little beyond the schema structure and the parameter name itself.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'network log' with the parameter 'scan_id', clearly communicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools that may also retrieve scan-related data, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_scan_result or get_pcap_metadata. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative references, leaving the agent without usage context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as return format, error behavior, or handling of invalid scan_id. It simply restates the function name without deeper disclosure.

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, focused sentence that is immediately comprehensible. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it optimally concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema exists, so return values are documented externally. However, the description is vague about what 'OCR data' includes and lacks details on prerequisites, making it minimally adequate with clear gaps for full contextual understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undefined scan_id parameter. It only repeats the parameter name and gives no additional meaning about expected format, how to obtain the ID, or any constraints beyond the schema's title.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Get OCR data for a scan_id.' It distinguishes itself from many sibling get_* tools by focusing on OCR data for a specific scan, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other OCR-related tools like get_ocr_stats or search_ocr.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid scan_id or ensuring OCR has been processed, nor does it relate to siblings like get_scan_result or get_scan_summary.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the name—no indication of what data is returned, whether stats are global or per-scan, or any other operational 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?

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. The sentence merely repeats the declared name and adds no value, so it does not earn its place.

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?

While the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is too ambiguous to be complete. Without any clarification of what 'OCR stats' means or how it relates to sibling tools like get_ocr_by_scan or get_analyzer_stats, an agent cannot confidently determine what the call returns or when it is appropriate.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema is complete and there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 'Get OCR stats.' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and title, providing no additional detail about what the stats represent or how they differ from the many other 'get_*_stats' sibling tools. This is a tautology rather than a meaningful purpose statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling stats tools, no context about prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent is left to guess the intended scope or use case.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond that, such as what happens with invalid scan_ids, whether it returns partial data, or any rate-limiting considerations. It fails to go beyond what annotations already provide.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core purpose. It could be slightly longer to add context, but as far as conciseness goes, it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

While the tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, the description is too minimal to be considered complete. It does not explain what Open Graph data entails, nor does it provide any guidance on valid scan_id formats or expected results. Given the low schema coverage and lack of parameter documentation, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for the single parameter scan_id, and the description merely says 'for a scan_id' without adding any extra meaning, format, or constraints. The parameter semantics are essentially undocumented, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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 retrieves Open Graph data for a given scan_id, using a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinguishable from the many sibling get_* tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them. The scope is somewhat generic, but the purpose is nevertheless clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another tool might be more appropriate. The only implied context is that a scan_id is required, but this is not elaborated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the scoping constraint of a scan_id but does not disclose other behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or error behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It earns its place by being direct and complete enough for a simple getter.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what 'pastejacking' refers to, nor does it provide usage context, but the sibling naming pattern and scan_id scope make it understandable. It could be enhanced with a brief definition or note on return values.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value by placing scan_id in context ('for a scan_id') but does not explain what a scan_id is, where to find it, or any format expectations. This is a thin addition beyond the schema's parameter name.

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 'Get pastejacking findings for a scan_id' uses a specific verb ('get'), names the resource ('pastejacking findings'), and specifies the scope ('for a scan_id'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_malware_by_scan or get_ocr_by_scan by its unique finding type.

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 its usage: one would call this tool when needing pastejacking findings for a given scan. However, it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or comparison to other scan-related getter tools, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this over siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, which is acceptable for a simple read operation but earns no extra credit.

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 that is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information.

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's simplicity (one parameter), annotations covering safety, and an output schema present, the description is sufficient. It does not discuss edge cases or prerequisites, but these are not critical for such a straightforward getter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only repeats 'scan_id' without explaining format, constraints, or examples. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get PCAP metadata') and the resource ('for a scan_id'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools by the unique resource type (PCAP metadata).

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?

Usage context is implied: it is used to retrieve PCAP metadata for a scan. No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given, but the uniqueness of the tool name and simple parameter make the use case evident.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not state what kind of statistics are returned, whether they are global or scoped, or any other relevant behavior.

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 one-sentence description is technically concise but under-specifies the tool. It simply repeats the title 'Get Platform Stats' without providing any useful elaboration, so the sentence does not earn its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema and rich annotations, the description is severely incomplete in context. With over 100 sibling tools including many stats variants, this description gives no indication of what makes 'platform stats' unique, leaving an agent without enough information to select or invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing, but there is nothing to explain for 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 'Get platform statistics' simply restates the tool title without defining what 'platform' refers to. It does not distinguish this tool from the numerous sibling *_stats tools (e.g., get_analyzer_stats, get_domain_stats, get_yara_stats), making the purpose ambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other statistics endpoints. There is no mention of scope, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent cannot decide between this and similar stats tools.

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

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'paginated' trait, but does not explain the meaning of 'popular' or how the 'days' parameter affects results, so behavioral transparency is partially addressed.

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 that gets to the point. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, which is why it does not earn a 5.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description is partially complete. However, it lacks context about the 'days' parameter, what 'popular' means, and how this relates to sibling tools, leaving room for improvement.

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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It only mentions pagination implicitly but leaves 'days' unexplained. Page and limit are inferable from names, but the meaning of 'days' is ambiguous, making the parameter semantics inadequate.

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 gets popular technologies with a verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_technologies_by_scan or get_technology_stats, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_technologies or get_technologies_by_scan. The description only states the basic action without context or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what happens when a scan_id is not found, the data source, or the structure of the response. It fails to provide value beyond the structured annotations.

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 one short sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, it is under-specified and lacks informative details that could be added without significant verbosity, so it is not fully appropriately sized for the tool's needs.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about what RDAP is, how it relates to a scan, and when to use this tool, making it minimally complete but not robust.

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 for the single parameter 'scan_id' is 0%, and the description merely says 'for a scan_id' without explaining its format, meaning, or how to obtain it. The description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation, but it does not, leaving the parameter semantically unclear.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('RDAP details') tied to a 'scan_id', making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from sibling tools because no other tool mentions RDAP. However, it does not elaborate on what RDAP details encompass, which slightly limits the precision.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, and there are no references to sibling tools for comparison.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only 'paginated' as a behavioral trait, but does not explain the pagination behavior or other runtime details beyond that single word.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no filler. The description is appropriately sized for the simple tool.

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 low complexity, strong annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for selecting the tool. However, it leaves pagination parameter details and usage comparison with alternatives to the schema/agent inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it only says 'paginated' and does not explain page/limit semantics, defaults, bounds, or ordering. The schema itself supplies only property titles and default values, which is minimal.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('recent public scans') and explicitly notes pagination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_scans or get_domain_scans by scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search/get tools, and no explicit exclusions or alternative suggestions. It only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, so it is minimally acceptable but not enriching.

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 that immediately states the core purpose. It is front-loaded with no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 multiple similar sibling tools and two undocumented parameters, the description is too terse to provide sufficient context. It does not explain what constitutes a 'malware threat,' how to filter by time or limit, or how it differs from get_recent_yara_threats, leaving the tool under-specified.

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 mention the 'hours' or 'limit' parameters. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify their meaning, format, or effects, earning a low score.

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 'Get recent malware threats' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_recent_yara_threats, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.