list_garak_probes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists attacks and returns a list, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether the list is static or dynamic. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and return details following. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. Minor improvements could include structuring the return statement more clearly, but overall it's efficient.

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's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return type, but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or how it relates to sibling tools. Without annotations, it should provide more guidance to be fully complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by clarifying the return type ('list: A list of available probes / attacks'), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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's purpose: 'List all available Garak attacks.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Garak attacks'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_models' or 'list_model_types', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_report' or 'run_attack', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only implied usage is to retrieve attack information, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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