describe_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the operation is fetching guidance (read-only), but it does not mention potential failure modes, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is minimally adequate for a straightforward fetch operation.

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 two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action and providing input examples. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant words, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and input format. It could optionally describe the output (e.g., 'returns the guidance text'), but the phrase 'full ... page guidance' implies a textual response, making it sufficient.

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 already describes the parameter as 'Menu ID or MCP tool name to describe.' The description adds concrete examples ('ping', 'network_ping'), which clarify the expected format beyond the schema description. This adds value given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the full Online Cyber Tools page guidance for a tool.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are actual tool implementations (e.g., conversions, crypto) rather than meta-documentation.

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 examples of acceptable inputs ('menu ID such as `ping` or an MCP tool name such as `network_ping`'), which aids usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'search' sibling tool. More explicit guidance on selecting this tool would improve the score.

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