arsenal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It describes the two modes (pull a class page or search) and the default behavior of listing pages with no args. It's clearly a read-only lookup, and the description adds context beyond the schema.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose. The args list is well-structured and every sentence provides useful information. Slightly longer than necessary but still appropriately sized for the amount of guidance offered.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, what parameters mean, and what to do when uncertain. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists. Slightly more detail on the type of content in the arsenal could push it to a 5.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates. It enumerates valid values for vuln_class, notes aliases, explains query as free-text search, and clarifies the behavior when neither parameter is provided. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 it's a bypass/technique reference to consult when a hunt is blocked, with a specific verb 'Consult' and a named resource 'Novelty's arsenal'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a knowledge-base lookup rather than an active scan or request tool.

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?

Provides explicit usage context ('when a hunt is blocked by a control') and offers conditional guidance ('if you don't know the class' use query, 'call with neither' to list pages). Lacks explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use, so not a full 5.

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