cyntrisec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists tools and returns a list with descriptions, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 concise and well-structured with two clear sentences: one stating the purpose and another describing the return value. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids unnecessary details. However, the formatting with extra whitespace slightly reduces efficiency, preventing a perfect score.

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 that the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is somewhat complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but it lacks behavioral context (like authentication needs) and usage guidelines. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them, but other gaps remain.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's function. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't attempt to add unnecessary parameter information.

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: 'List all available Cyntrisec tools.' This specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Cyntrisec tools'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_assets' or 'get_findings', which prevents a score of 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 any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools. This lack of usage instructions makes it harder for an AI agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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