assess_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a risk report but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what types of security documents are supported beyond 'PDF, Word, etc.', whether the assessment is read-only or modifies the file, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter details in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections more fluidly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (assessing security documents), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks context on usage scenarios, behavioral traits, and detailed parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'file_path' is for 'the file to be assessed' and 'scenario_id' is for 'the assessment scenario ID', which clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond their titles. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., valid file paths, scenario ID options) or provide examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Assess a security document (PDF, Word, etc.) and return a risk report.' This specifies the verb ('assess'), resource ('security document'), and output ('risk report'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'query_knowledge_base'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from that sibling beyond the different resource focus.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a sibling tool 'query_knowledge_base' but gives no context about when to choose one over the other, nor any prerequisites or exclusions for using this tool.

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