signalgrid_security_posture

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so no restatement is needed. The description adds crucial behavior: null enabled means UNKNOWN, never 'off'; null indicates a check that often requires elevation; and the response includes _unknown and _note fields.

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 tightly structured: one line for scope, a focused paragraph on null semantics, and a terse return-type spec. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 no-argument read-only tool, this description is comprehensive. It defines the domain, the return mapping, the subtle null semantics, and the auxiliary _unknown and _note fields, making the tool usable without further investigation.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds value by documenting the return structure, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 opens with 'Core security posture' and names exactly four controls: SIP, FileVault, Gatekeeper, and application firewall. This clearly identifies the resource and scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like signalgrid_network_posture and signalgrid_xprotect_status.

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 scope statement tells the agent when this tool is relevant: when checking these specific core security controls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the control list is a clear context for use.

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