get_attack_surface_rules

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the license requirement and API endpoint, but does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting defaults, response format, or confirm that this is a read-only operation despite the 'Get' in the name.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by essential license and endpoint information. There is no fluff or redundancy, 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?

The description is minimally adequate: it states the purpose and license requirement, and the schema provides rich parameter details. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the return value or pagination behavior, leaving some context 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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for request_data, including sort, filters, search_from, and search_to. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states 'Get all or a subset of attack surface rules' with a specific verb and resource scope. It is easy to understand the tool's function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get-type tools like get_risk_score or get_risky_users.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-related context is the required license, which is a prerequisite but not a decision guideline. It does not state exclusions, preferred scenarios, or alternative tools.

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