ps_security_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions actions (list, enable, disable, set_severity) but doesn't describe side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens when patterns are modified (e.g., if changes are immediate or require restart). For a configuration tool with mutation capabilities and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Configure security detection patterns') and lists the specific actions. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (multiple mutation actions like enable/disable/set_severity), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances (e.g., if 'list' returns all patterns or a subset). For a configuration tool with potential side effects, more context is needed to use it 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (action, patternId, severity) with enums and requirements. The description adds minimal value by implying the tool handles 'security detection patterns,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints beyond what's in the structured data. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs (configure, list, enable, disable, change severity) and identifies the resource (security detection patterns). It distinguishes this as a configuration tool for security patterns, which differentiates it from sibling tools like ps_security_gate or ps_security_scan that likely have different functions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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, dependencies, or compare it to sibling tools like ps_security_gate or ps_security_scan. The agent must infer usage from the description alone, which only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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