bof_relayinformer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It uses 'check' implying non-destructive read, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, lacks permissions or side-effect information, and does not clarify safety or potential impact.

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 well-structured with sections per protocol and clear examples, but it is somewhat verbose for an MCP tool description. It could be more concise while retaining essential information.

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 complexity with multiple subcommands and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It explains what each subcommand does, though it lacks explicit mapping to the generic input schema parameters.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by showing concrete command and args values (e.g., 'http https://test.dom.local') and mapping to the command parameter. However, it does not explicitly explain the agent_id or args parameters, leaving some ambiguity.

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 checks relay attack mitigations on remote services and lists specific protocols (HTTP, LDAP, MSSQL, SMB) with distinct checks. This differentiates it from sibling bof_* tools which target other security aspects.

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 explicit usage examples for each protocol variant (e.g., 'relay-informer http <url>'), giving clear context. However, it does not state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools, but the examples sufficiently guide usage.

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