run_security_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosure. It fails to mention whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous, what authentication or permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., network scanning may be destructive). The single sentence lacks essential behavioral context for a tool that orchestrates external security tools.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words are present, but the conciseness comes at the cost of missing critical detail. It earns a high score for structure but not for completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and sibling tools like 'get_job_status' (implying potential asynchronous behavior), the description omits any context about how results are returned, whether execution is blocking, or how errors are reported. The tool's role in an orchestration workflow is undefined, leaving a significant gap in understanding for an AI agent.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented with a description in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Given the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description adds no new parameter insights, this score 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 verb 'Execute' and the resource 'a security tool via the HexStrike orchestration server', making the primary action and context unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'scan_target' or 'list_available_tools', which could have overlapping functionality.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'scan_target' or 'list_available_tools'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or the appropriate context for invocation, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and parameter list.

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