Continuous agent-speed defense for public surfaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the probe is 'deterministic' and tied to a subscription, but does not state whether it mutates state, what permissions are required, how long it takes, or any rate/side-effect 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 filler. It is terse but not structurally padded, though that economy comes at the cost of omitted operational detail (scored under 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that clearly split the domain, the description is incomplete. It omits when to use it, what the probe returns or affects, and how surface_id should be populated, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 single parameter surface_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. It implies the value must be 'one of your verified surfaces' under a subscription, which adds some meaning, but gives no format, ID 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 names an action ('Full deterministic probe') and a target ('one of your verified surfaces'), but 'probe' and 'surface' are domain jargon left undefined, and it does not distinguish the operation from sibling tools defense_verdicts or exposure_verdict. An agent gets a rough category but not a precise 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus defense_verdicts or exposure_verdict. The '(subscription)' note hints at a precondition but does not establish when this probe is appropriate.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a safe read, but the description says nothing about scope, pagination, ordering, or volume of results returned.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It wastes no words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than lean.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an ambiguous term ("verdicts"), the description is too thin. It does not tell the agent what a verdict contains or how results are shaped, leaving a meaningful gap for even a simple list 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the absence of inputs.

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?

"List your stored verdicts" gives a clear verb (List) and resource (verdicts), so the basic action is understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling `exposure_verdict` or explain what a "verdict" is in this domain, leaving the purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings `defense_run` or `exposure_verdict`. The agent must infer that this is a read/list operation, with no stated conditions, prerequisites, or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it largely fails: it doesn't state whether this is read-only or a mutation, what the verdict contains, what permissions or billing state it requires beyond rail type, or any rate limits. The rail-scoping note is the only behavioral context added.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is dense with parenthetical jargon, but every clause (rail scope, alternative endpoint) carries signal rather than 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is the only source of truth and leaves major gaps: what a 'verdict' returns, whether the call is safe/read-only, and how to supply surface_id. It is materially under-specified for a callable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required surface_id parameter. It only implies that surface_id refers to 'one of your verified surfaces' — it gives no format, sourcing, or example, leaving the agent to guess how to obtain and shape the 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 names a specific resource ('one of your verified surfaces') and a concrete artifact type ('scoped diff verdict'), so the agent knows it operates per-surface. However, 'verdict' is jargon that doesn't clarify what the tool actually computes or returns, and it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling defense_verdicts. Purpose is only partially recoverable.

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 parenthetical gives a real routing hint: this applies to trial/subscription rails, while the $25 one-off rail should use the HTTP /verdict endpoint instead. That is a genuine when-not signal. It still says nothing about when to prefer this over defense_run or defense_verdicts.

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