get_attack_surface_issue_counts_by_severity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get ... counts' weakly implies a read, but there is no statement of required permissions, rate limits, or whether the account scope is enforced. For a no-annotation tool this is a notable gap.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the grouping dimension appear immediately. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter count tool.

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 simple read-only count tool with complete param coverage and no output schema this is roughly adequate, but terms like 'attack-surface issue' and the severity buckets are never defined, and no return shape is hinted at.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents account_id fully. The phrase 'for a Cloudflare account' restates the scope but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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 verb (Get) and resource (Security Center attack-surface issue counts) and adds the key grouping dimension (by severity). It is distinguishable from the by_class and by_type siblings via that grouping phrase, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over get_attack_surface_issue_counts_by_class or get_attack_surface_issue_counts_by_type, nor any preconditions. The grouping phrase implies the distinction but leaves it to inference.

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