cyntrisec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool can 'set or retrieve' and affects 'subsequent calls,' which hints at state mutation and session persistence. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error conditions, rate limits, or what 'latest' means in retrieval. For a tool with potential write operations and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides parameter semantics. There's no wasted text, and it's structured for clarity. However, the use of 'Args:' in a description field is slightly redundant, as parameter details are typically handled by the schema, keeping it from a top 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 the tool has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or session implications. The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained, but overall, it's just adequate for a simple tool with clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'snapshot_id' is an 'Optional scan id/directory name' and clarifies semantics: if omitted, it 'returns current/ latest.' This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., string patterns) or examples, preventing a perfect score.

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: 'Set or retrieve the active snapshot id used for subsequent calls.' This specifies both a write action ('set') and a read action ('retrieve') on a specific resource ('active snapshot id'), with context about its effect on 'subsequent calls.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_scan_summary' or 'compare_scans,' which might involve snapshot-related operations, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance: it implies the tool is used to manage snapshot IDs for session context, but offers no explicit advice on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_scan_summary' for snapshot details) or any prerequisites. There's no mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.

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