Generate Security Report

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

Annotation readOnlyHint=true contradicts the description, which allows sending email when send_email is true. This is a serious inconsistency. The description does disclose the email behavior, but the contradiction undermines trust.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: first states the tool's core function, second adds an essential behavioral constraint. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description could elaborate more on report format or return structure. It covers default behavior and email caveat, but lacks details on what the report contains or how it is returned.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; the key behavioral constraint (default no email) is only partially parameter-related.

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 it generates a consolidated Talos security report from multiple sources (website scan, CVEs, research, auth-log analysis). It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_report_email and run_security_tool by specifying its unique scope and default return-only behavior.

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 'By default this ONLY returns the report. Do not email... unless the user explicitly asks or send_email is true.' This provides clear usage context and when-not-to-use guidance. However, it does not name alternative tools for email functionality.

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