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. It discloses the tool's behavior by stating it compares scans and returns changes in assets, relationships, and attack paths, which adds useful context about output scope. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., if it's read-only or has performance impacts), authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate but incomplete disclosure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the return values. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy. It's efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (simple comparison with no parameters), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values further. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., read-only status), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input (none required). The description doesn't add parameter information, which is unnecessary here. According to the rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline of 4, as there's no need to compensate for schema gaps.

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: 'Compare latest scan to previous scan.' This is a specific verb ('compare') with clear resources ('latest scan' and 'previous scan'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_scan_summary' or 'get_assets' by focusing on comparison rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (none listed), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing existing scans), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'get_scan_summary' or 'get_findings'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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