Agentic Security Shield

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It clearly indicates the tool is a read-only preview that does not require payment, implying no side effects. This is sufficient for a simple informational 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?

The description is two sentences, immediately stating the tool's purpose and noting the lack of payment. Every word adds value, and it is concise without being terse.

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 explains what the preview covers, but does not mention the return format (e.g., text, markdown) or what the agent can expect as output. For a no-parameter tool, this is a minor gap that prevents full 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information but does not need to, as there are no parameters to document.

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 that the tool provides a free preview of Agentic Security Shield, explaining what it covers (capabilities, supported tools/backends, security layers). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_pricing, get_sample, and purchase, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 for obtaining an overview before purchasing or exploring specifics, and explicitly states 'No payment required,' which suggests it is for initial information gathering. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to 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 must carry the full burden. It accurately describes the return values and implies a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects, authorization, or rate limits, but for a simple info-gathering tool 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?

Two concise sentences front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word adds value, and the structure is 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable picture. It covers price, payment method, and purchase steps. Could be enhanced by noting if the price is static or dynamic, but overall it is sufficient for a simple informational 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 no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). Baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info but instead focuses on what the tool returns, which is helpful but not required for this dimension.

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 obtains pricing and payment instructions for Agentic Security Shield, specifying exact return items (price, payment method, purchase flow). This differentiates it from siblings like get_preview and purchase.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. While the purpose is implied (use when needing pricing info), the presence of siblings (get_preview, get_sample, purchase) suggests additional clarification would help agents choose correctly.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return value but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. However, as a read operation, the impact is low.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, every word adds value. Clearly explains purpose and what to expect.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. Could mention that it is free and intended for evaluation, but overall 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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, meeting the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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?

Clearly states it gets a free sample security rule, specifying the layer (Secrets Guard) and that it includes code examples. Distinguishes itself from siblings by being a free sample.

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?

Implies usage for demonstration or evaluation, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use it, nor does it mention 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 must disclose behavior. It explains the token format, single-use nature, 24-hour validity, and that it delivers config files. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies state or is read-only, which would be a minor gap.

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 well-structured with clear step-by-step instructions and a front-loaded purpose. While verbose, every part earns its place. A slightly more concise phrasing could improve it, but it is not overly long.

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 complexity (two-phase flow) and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the process and prerequisites. It details what happens in each step and the token lifecycle. However, it could more clearly state the tool's response format (e.g., whether it returns files directly or a secondary token).

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'payment_token' is a download token (not the raw on-chain hash) and that 'ai_tool' is optional for highlighting. This extra context improves parameter understanding.

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: 'Purchase Agentic Security Shield and receive all security configuration files.' It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from siblings (get_preview, get_pricing, get_sample) which are for preview, pricing, and samples.

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 explicit two-phase flow instructions, including when to use this tool (STEP 2) and when not to ('most agents will get the files inline from STEP 1's response and never need to call this MCP tool'). It also mentions alternatives and the 24-hour token validity.

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