cyntrisec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, whether it's read-only or mutative, or how it handles errors. It mentions grouping by role with percentages, but lacks details on output format or pagination.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, 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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description covers the purpose and one parameter well, and the output schema likely handles return values. However, it misses details on the undocumented 'snapshot_id' parameter and behavioral aspects, leaving some 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?

The description adds meaningful context for 'days_threshold' ('Days of inactivity to consider unused'), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, it doesn't mention 'snapshot_id', leaving one parameter undocumented. Since there are only 2 parameters and one is well-explained, this is above the baseline for low schema 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 specific action ('Find unused IAM permissions') and resource ('blast radius reduction opportunities'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'check_access' or 'get_assets' by focusing on permission analysis rather than access checking or asset listing.

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 for identifying inactive permissions based on a days threshold, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_access' or 'get_findings', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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