ch_cyber_about

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly indicates a read operation returning metadata, but does not disclose any potential side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The description is truthful but not deeply informative.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and output. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and simple purpose, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool does and what it returns. Sibling tool names further clarify its distinct role.

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?

There are no parameters (0 params, schema coverage 100%). The description adds value by specifying the contents of the returned metadata (version, data source, coverage, tool list), which is helpful beyond the empty schema.

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 returns metadata about the MCP server, listing version, data source, coverage, and tool list. This is distinct from sibling tools like ch_cyber_get_guidance or ch_cyber_search_advisories, which deal with content rather than server 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 implies use for initial discovery or troubleshooting, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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