get_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the output is a pedagogical guide and lists topics, but it does not clarify whether the tool reads environment state, has side effects, or what the structure of the guidance actually is beyond the cryptic labels.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parenthetical notation is compact and slightly cryptic, but there is no wasted text.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks when-to-use guidance and definitions of the topic codes. An agent can call the tool with a plausible topic, but may not know exactly what to expect or when it is the right choice.

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 only defines 'topic' as a bare string with 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of valid values. Listing 'reconocimiento, a01, a02, a05, a06, bandera' is genuinely useful, though it does not define each code or state explicitly that these are the allowed values.

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 that the tool provides a step-by-step pedagogical guide and enumerates supported topics, which gives the agent a reasonable idea of what it does. However, the meaning of 'obvios / no obvios / siguiente paso' is cryptic, and it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings beyond being guidance-oriented.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings like load_target_info, assess_owasp, or write_report. The topic list hints at scope, but no selection conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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