get_remediation_leverage

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

The description declares the tool as read-only and explains the three output components (ranked, greedy_plan, summary). However, with no annotations, it does not cover potential costs, prerequisites, or side effects beyond stating it is non-modifying.

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 well-structured with the core purpose front-loaded and additional details logically following. It is fairly concise, though the third sentence could be more tightly integrated.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return values and usage context. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., model exists, control objectives defined) but overall is sufficient for an analysis tool.

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 has two required parameters with 50% description coverage (model_id described, server_version not). The tool description does not add any additional detail beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing server_version description.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to provide a remediation-leverage plan ranking controls by effect and a greedy minimal fix order. It clearly distinguishes from other tools by emphasizing prioritization and efficiency.

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 advises using the tool to prioritize implementation work and contrasts it with fixing objectives one at a time, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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