websex_censys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does disclose meaningful traits: argv is passed directly with no shell parsing (implying no injection/escaping concerns) and execution is scoped to the engagement namespace. It omits key operational behavior such as authentication requirements (censys needs API credentials) and rate limits.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds operational detail without padding; only the namespace sentence borders on redundancy with 'engagement_id'.

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 return values need not be described. For a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description covers invocation mechanics reasonably but leaves stdin undocumented and gives no auth/credential context for the underlying censys binary.

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. It clarifies that 'arguments' are argv tokens (not a shell string) and that paths should be relative to the engagement namespace, covering the working_directory/engagement semantics. However, 'stdin' is never addressed and 'engagement_id' is only implied.

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?

States a specific verb and the exact binary being run ('Run censys'), plus its toolkit context (WebSex enumeration). 'censys' is a distinct resource among the siblings, so it is unlikely to be confused, though the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives.

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 explains how to invoke the tool (argv tokens, no shell parsing, relative paths) but gives no guidance on when to use censys versus other enumeration siblings or what conditions select it. The engagement-namespace note is invocation context, not usage guidance.

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