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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that the server never requests assessment notes or reports and instructs the AI to keep data local, which is important privacy guidance. No contradiction with 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently outlines the two output variants and adds a third sentence about privacy, which is relevant but somewhat tangential. No wasted words, though the privacy note could be seen as extra.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, which it does by listing the sections of the report and brief. It also addresses the tool's non-request for sensitive data, which is helpful context. It lacks specifics about format or how to use the template, but for a single-parameter template retrieval, it is sufficiently complete.

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 provides full coverage for the 'kind' parameter with enum descriptions. The description enriches this by explaining the internal structure of both 'report' and 'brief', giving the agent a clearer sense of what each value returns. This goes beyond mere schema repetition.

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 Lenny Zeltser's security assessment template, distinguishing it from other domain-specific templates (CTI, IR) by name. It also differentiates between report and brief forms. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like assessment_get_brief_template, which may overlap.

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 by detailing what the report and brief contain, helping an agent decide which artifact to request. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as assessment_get_guidelines or other domain templates, nor does it mention exclusions.

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