maxwell-defense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Free scope and price discovery' and does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, what authentication is required, or how results are returned. This is effectively no behavioral 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 extremely short, but it is cryptic rather than efficient. 'Free scope and price discovery' lacks a clear subject and action, and the word 'Free' is ambiguous. It is under-specified, not concise-and-clear.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations and no parameters, the description still needs to convey what the tool actually does. It does not mention the agent or describe any behavior, leaving the tool's purpose largely unexplained.

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 description does not need to explain parameter meanings. Per the rubric, zero parameters yields a baseline of 4; there is no parameter-related gap.

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 'Free scope and price discovery' does not state a clear verb or resource. It never says what is being described (an agent) or that this tool returns agent scope and pricing, so an agent must infer purpose from the tool name alone. It fails to distinguish itself from the sibling plan_workload.

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 plan_workload or any alternative. It does not describe prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The word 'Free' hints at cost but provides no usage guidance.

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 burden. It does disclose two important negative behaviors: it does not activate endpoint protection and does not establish energy savings. However, it doesn't state whether it's read-only, side-effect free, or what permissions/environment it needs, leaving significant gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Very short, which is good, but it is not front-loaded with a clear purpose statement – the opening '$1 bounded policy rehearsal' is cryptic. The negative clauses are useful but take up the remainder of an already sparse description.

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 required numeric parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what a 'bounded policy rehearsal' is, what the returned model represents, or how the four inputs influence the result. The output schema exists so return-value detail is less needed, but the invocation 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter info. Field names like client_hashes_per_second and backend_cost_ms are somewhat self-descriptive, but units, valid ranges, and relationships between the four required parameters are undocumented anywhere.

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 says '$1 bounded policy rehearsal' which is jargon that doesn't convey a clear verb+resource an agent can act on. 'Returns a model and local hash measurement' hints at output but the core operation is opaque. A sibling tool exists but the description doesn't differentiate from describe_agent.

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, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to describe_agent. The only directional statement is what the tool does NOT do (does not activate protection or establish savings), which is exclusionary but not a when-to-use rule.

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