Security Dashboard Overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions response modes and output detail levels, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or how the security score is sourced or refreshed.

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 two sentences and front-loads the security status purpose before explaining response modes. It is efficient, though 'comprehensive' appears twice and the response-mode detail partly duplicates the schema.

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?

For a two-parameter overview tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description states the output content and response modes, but it omits selection guidance versus siblings and behavioral context such as read-only safety. It is adequate but leaves clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both domain and response_mode are already fully documented in the input schema. The description repeats the concept of response modes but adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 has a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('security score, grade, and key metrics'), so an agent knows this returns a security dashboard summary. It identifies itself as an overview, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like query_security_data or analyze_security_risks.

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?

It gives mode-based usage guidance ('minimal responses for quick queries and detailed analysis for comprehensive security overviews'), but this is about the response_mode parameter, not when to choose this tool over its siblings. No alternative tools are named or compared.

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