Build an actionable security checklist of controls and guidance for a described component, query, or segment. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Optional tag filters (reserved for future use) | |
| query | No | Natural-language description of the component to review | |
| segment | No | Segment identifier to scope the checklist (e.g. 'llm-app') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' which indicates no side effects, but it does not explain how the checklist is built (e.g., generated vs. retrieved), nor does it disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits or dependencies. The phrase 'Build an actionable security checklist' suggests generation, which could conflict with 'Read-only' but is not clarified.
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: two short sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the 'Read-only' caveat is appended. Every sentence 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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the checklist output looks like, how to interpret results, or how this tool differs from siblings like kb_map or kb_search. Users are left without enough context to use it effectively.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide (e.g., 'tag filters reserved for future use', 'natural-language description', 'segment identifier'). It does not elaborate on 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 clearly states the verb (Build), the resource (security checklist), and the scope (for a described component, query, or segment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kb_search or kb_classify by focusing on generating a checklist.
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 a security checklist is needed for a specific component, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The 'Read-only' note gives minimal context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: building checklists, classifying threats, mapping compliance, fetching by ID, listing entities, mapping framework IDs, traversing relationships, and semantic search. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools use the 'kb_' prefix followed by a descriptive word, but the pattern varies: some are verbs (classify, get, list, search), one is a noun (checklist), and one is an adjective (related). Mostly consistent but with minor deviations.
8 tools is an appropriate number for a read-only knowledge base, covering the essential retrieval, search, and mapping operations without being excessive.
The tool set covers all necessary read operations for a security knowledge base: search, classification, compliance mapping, entity retrieval, listing, relationship traversal, and checklist generation. No obvious gaps given the read-only scope.