check_secure

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

With no annotations, the description clearly states the tool is report-only and never touches key material, providing key behavioral transparency. However, it does not disclose other traits like performance or limits.

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 three sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently covers the tool's actions and safety.

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 zero parameters and an output schema (implied by 'report-only'), the description sufficiently describes the output: counts, flags, and checklist. No gaps.

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 are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description need not add parameter info. Baseline is 4, and no additional detail is necessary.

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 uses a specific verb ('summarise') and resource ('KNX Data Secure posture') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_all or check_dpt by focusing on security posture and keyring workflow.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage is implied for security assessments.

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