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 returns Terraform HCL code, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not confirmed). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a clear 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence earns its place by defining parameters and output without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value, and the output schema likely details the Terraform code structure, reducing the need for further explanation. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or usage constraints.

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 provides clear semantics for all four parameters: 'source_name' and 'target_name' specify assets, 'relationship_type' defines the relationship (with an example), and 'snapshot_id' is optional with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could benefit from more detail on valid relationship types or snapshot usage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Terraform code snippet for a specific remediation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_remediations' or 'explain_finding' which handle different aspects of remediation or analysis. It explicitly identifies what is being retrieved and for what purpose.

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 when a Terraform remediation snippet is needed for a specific asset relationship, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_remediations' (which might provide broader remediation info) or 'explain_finding' (which might explain issues without code). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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