Taint settings

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain semantics beyond that: the three-state value model (on/off/unset) and the rule that unset inherits from the level above, which is essential to interpreting results.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The subject (what the tool returns) is front-loaded and the qualifier about unset/inheritance follows immediately.

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 need no prose explanation, and the one optional parameter is fully described in the schema. The three-state/inheritance semantics fill the main interpretive gap. Only the scope hierarchy itself (which levels inherit from which) is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and the machine parameter is documented richly in the schema, including the list_machines source and the meaning of omitting it (account-wide/global scope). The description adds no parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific resource and what it represents: the kinds of incoming data a given scope treats as untrusted. The agent can tell it apart from rule, filter, machine and event siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent whether this is for auditing current taint policy versus troubleshooting detections, and no alternative tool is referenced. Usage is only inferable from the verb in the name.

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