cyntrisec

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 states the tool checks compliance and returns a score and failing controls, but doesn't mention what triggers the check (e.g., uses a snapshot), performance implications, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves gaps for a tool that likely involves data processing.

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 concise and well-structured with three sentences: purpose, args, and returns. Each sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the main function. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing efficiency.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and one parameter but misses the 'snapshot_id' parameter and lacks behavioral context like how the check is performed. For a compliance-checking tool with 2 parameters, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 documents the 'framework' parameter with allowed values ('cis-aws' or 'soc2'), adding meaning beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it omits the 'snapshot_id' parameter entirely, failing to explain its purpose or optionality, which is a significant gap given the low coverage.

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: 'Check compliance against CIS AWS or SOC 2 framework.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('compliance'), and identifies the frameworks. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_scans' or 'get_scan_summary', which may also relate to compliance or scanning.

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 mentions the frameworks but doesn't explain prerequisites, context (e.g., after a scan), or exclusions. With siblings like 'compare_scans' and 'get_scan_summary', there's no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow or when it's preferred.

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