run_attack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool runs an attack and returns vulnerabilities, but lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive/mutative operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'vulnerabilities' entail (e.g., format, severity). The description covers basic behavior but misses key operational traits.

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, starting with the core purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a clear function, with no redundant information. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly verbose for a short description, 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 complexity (running an attack with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the attack process, potential side effects, error handling, or the structure of the returned vulnerabilities list. For a tool with significant operational implications, this leaves too many unknowns.

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 lists the three parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'model_type (str): The type of model to use'), but these add minimal semantic value beyond the schema's titles. No examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters (e.g., valid model_type values) are provided, leaving significant gaps.

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 states the tool 'Run[s] an attack with the given model and probe which is a Garak attack', which provides a basic verb+resource (run attack with model/probe). However, it's vague about what 'attack' means in this context (e.g., security testing, adversarial prompting) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_report' or 'list_garak_probes'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to list models/probes first), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_report' for results. The description implies usage through parameters but offers no contextual advice.

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