assess_spoofability

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds details about return values (risk level, sub-scores, summary), caching behavior (force_refresh parameter), and auto-detected output verbosity. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and output, followed by usage guidance. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately explains the computation (SPF, DMARC, DKIM), output structure (risk level, sub-scores, summary), and caching. It misses nothing critical for an AI agent to decide and invoke.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds some context (e.g., 'Auto-detected if omitted' for format is already in schema) but does not significantly enhance semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool computes a composite email spoofability risk score (0-100) combining SPF, DMARC, and DKIM. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., individual check_spf, check_dmarc, check_dkim) by offering a composite score.

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 explicitly says when to use: when asked how easy it is to spoof email from a domain, or for a composite risk score. It implies usage context but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for individual control checks), but the distinction is clear from the sibling context.

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