get_report_queries_selinux_settings

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), the endpoint, and parameter placement, clearly indicating a read operation. It does not mention authentication, specific required headers, or rate limits, but for a simple GET retrieval this is a reasonable minimal disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the verb/resource and endpoint come first, followed by parameter placement. Every sentence contributes useful information and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. Still, the body parameter is left undocumented, and the guidance on filters and headers is generic; with so many similar report-query siblings, a bit more context on when to choose this specific query would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for path_params ('route IDs'), query ('filters and pagination'), and headers ('required request headers'), which is helpful. However, the body parameter is never explained, and the descriptions are generic with no concrete filter keys or header names.

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 action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('selinux settings'), and the exact endpoint ('GET /report_queries/selinux_settings'). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its many report-query siblings, but the resource name makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides concrete placement guidance for path_params, query, and headers. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no exclusion criteria; the usage context is only implied by the resource name.

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