list_attack_surface_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a safe read, but there is no mention of pagination, result limits, required permissions, filtering behavior, or volume of data returned. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The parenthetical gloss adds disambiguation value at no cost to brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description could usefully state what an 'issue' record contains or how results are returned, but it does not. For a simple one-parameter list tool it is adequate to enable a correct call, but leaves return semantics entirely unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single account_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping nuance beyond the parameter name. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (List), a specific resource (Security Center attack-surface-report issues), and a scope (Cloudflare account), plus a gloss of what those issues are (misconfigurations and exposures). It is clearly distinguishable from the counts/type siblings by nature, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over get_attack_surface_issue_counts_by_type, by_severity, or list_attack_surface_issue_types when it wants aggregate or type data instead of individual issues.

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