get_remediation_leverage

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

Declares the tool as read-only and describes the output shape (ranked, greedy_plan, summary). No annotations provided, so description carries the burden; it does a good job but could mention prerequisites or data freshness.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second details output, third provides usage guidance. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Covers main output structure and read-only nature. Missing details on server_version parameter and error handling, but overall sufficient for understanding the tool's function given its complexity.

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 coverage is only 50% (server_version lacks description). The description mentions 'for a model' but doesn't explain server_version or add constraints. Does not adequately compensate for the missing schema 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?

Clearly states it returns a remediation-leverage plan for a model, specifying the output structure (ranked controls, greedy plan, summary) and distinguishing from sibling tools like get_controls by focusing on prioritization.

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?

Explicitly says to use for prioritizing implementation work and implies it's a better approach than fixing objectives one at a time. Provides clear context but doesn't name alternative tools for just listing controls.

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