vet_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool combines multiple checks into a verdict, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose error cases, side effects, or whether the tool modifies state.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and scope. It front-loads the key output (PROCEED/CAUTION/BLOCK). Minor improvement could be splitting into two sentences, but overall concise.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return structure. It mentions 'with reasons' but not the format or detail. The tool is composite and complex; the description gives high-level info but lacks depth for complete agent understanding.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that previous_scan_id builds a traversable chained-workflow lineage retrievable via agent_scan_get, which goes beyond the schema's basic 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?

The description clearly states the tool produces a composite trust verdict (PROCEED/CAUTION/BLOCK) for an endpoint, combining multiple security checks. This specific verb-resource pair and the composite nature distinguish it from sibling tools like dns_security_check or ssl_tls_audit.

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 indicates the tool should be used when an agent is about to call or pay an endpoint, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct references to alternatives. While siblings are listed, no comparative usage advice is given.

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