cyntrisec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the algorithmic behavior ('min-cut algorithm') and output format ('List of remediations with coverage percentages'), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or side effects like computational cost, which would be valuable for a complex optimization tool.

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. Each sentence adds value: the first states the goal, the second explains the method, and the last two clarify parameters and returns. There's no redundant or verbose content.

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 (algorithmic optimization) and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining what it does and how. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. The main gap is the undocumented 'snapshot_id' parameter, but overall it provides sufficient context for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the 'max_cuts' parameter with its default value and purpose, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type information. However, it omits the 'snapshot_id' parameter entirely, leaving a gap in documentation for one of the two parameters.

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: 'Find optimal remediations that block attack paths.' It specifies the verb ('find') and resource ('remediations'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the min-cut algorithm approach, which is unique among tools like get_attack_paths or get_findings.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'attack paths' and 'min-cut algorithm,' suggesting it's for security optimization scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_attack_paths or explain_path, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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