cyntrisec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool tests access and returns a result, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or how it interacts with the 'snapshot_id' parameter. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries sensitive access data.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear Arg and Return sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and two parameters but misses the third parameter and behavioral details. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description's focus on semantics is adequate but not fully comprehensive for safe usage.

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 description adds some semantic context for 'principal' and 'resource' with examples (e.g., 'ECforS', 's3://prod-bucket'), which helps clarify their roles beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it omits the optional 'snapshot_id' parameter entirely, and with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving gaps in 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 with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('access to a resource'), explaining it checks if a principal can access a resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'explain_path' or 'get_attack_paths' that might relate to access analysis, leaving some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention contexts like security audits, troubleshooting, or prerequisites, and offers no comparison to sibling tools such as 'explain_finding' or 'get_relationships', which could overlap in access-related queries.

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