Binalyze AIR MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'Create a new triage rule' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects (e.g., if it triggers scans). It lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, which are critical for a creation tool with no output schema.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Create a new triage rule', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it's under-specified in content, it earns full marks for brevity and structure, as every word directly states the tool's action without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (a creation operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a triage rule is, how it's used, or what to expect upon creation. With no behavioral context and reliance solely on the schema for parameters, it falls short of providing a holistic understanding for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'description' as a name, 'rule' as YARA content). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema carries the burden of parameter documentation.

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 'Create a new triage rule' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. While it indicates a creation action, it doesn't specify what a triage rule is, what it does, or how it differs from related tools like 'create_triage_tag' or 'validate_triage_rule' in the sibling list. The purpose is minimally stated but lacks distinguishing details.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a case or policy), or exclusions (e.g., when not to create a rule). With siblings like 'create_triage_tag', 'validate_triage_rule', and 'update_triage_rule', there's no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow, leaving usage ambiguous.

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