cyntrisec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return content (asset counts, finding counts, attack path counts) but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or if 'latest' refers to the most recent scan by timestamp. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 very concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one listing return values. It's front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, the description doesn't need to detail return values, which it partially does. However, with no annotations and a parameter that's undocumented, the description is adequate but lacks depth for a tool that might involve scan data retrieval, leaving room for more context on usage and behavior.

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 input schema has one parameter ('snapshot_id') with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter information. However, since there's only one optional parameter, the baseline is high. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema details, but the minimal parameter count keeps the score from being lower.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('summary of the latest AWS scan'), specifying it retrieves a summary rather than detailed data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_assets' or 'get_findings', which might provide more granular information.

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 such as 'get_assets' or 'get_findings', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a scan to exist. It only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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