get_tool_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'Get/Returns' clearly signals a read-only lookup with no side effects. It also discloses the exact return content, including installation status and management commands, which goes beyond a generic 'get info' claim.

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 tight sentences: the first states the action and object, the second enumerates the returned fields. There is no fluff or repetition, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema, this is complete enough to invoke correctly. It omits only explicit alternative routing and edge-case behavior (e.g., unknown tool names), which keeps it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single param tool_name is already documented as 'Name of the tool to look up.' The description adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb 'Get' + specific resource 'detailed information about a cybersecurity tool', with enumerated fields (install method, module, URL, installation status, management commands) that distinguish it from sibling lookup tools like list_tools or check_installed.

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 purpose is inferable: use when you need detailed tool metadata and management commands. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against siblings (e.g., check_installed, list_tools), so the agent must infer the right choice.

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