analyze_opsec_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It lists the output categories (noise, logs, EDR, alternatives) but does not explain how the analysis is performed (e.g., static analysis, execution), potential side effects, safety considerations, or limitations. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse or incorrect expectations.

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 the tool's core function and key output categories. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, containing no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

The description does not specify the output format or structure (no output schema exists), and it omits usage context such as whether the command is executed locally or remotely. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this lacks sufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 adds value by explicitly listing the aspects analyzed, which directly correspond to the 'mode' enum values (noise, logs, edr, alternatives). This clarifies the purpose of the mode parameter. However, it does not add detail for 'command' or 'platform' beyond what the schema provides, keeping the score slightly above baseline.

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: to analyze operational security risk for a command, specifying four aspects (noise, logs, EDR, alternatives). It uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('operational security risk'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other types of analysis (e.g., analyze_binary, analyze_environment) or specific attack techniques.

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, no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where it is contraindicated. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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