anjian_run_assessment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one meaningful behavioral detail about the 'active' level requiring separate terminal unlock. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read or mutating operation, what side effects occur, whether use_external_tools has security implications (especially given many sibling tools relate to security testing/pcap), or what happens to the assessment after running.

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 short (one sentence), which technically scores well on conciseness, but the brevity is a function of under-specification rather than deliberate economy. It does front-load the primary purpose in the first clause. One could argue a 4 given the minimal waste, but the lack of substance makes the conciseness a weakness, not a strength.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the assessment run returns, how the 'level' interacts with 'use_external_tools', whether this assessment modifies state, or what prerequisites exist (besides the 'active' unlock note). The security-testing context implied by sibling tools (pcap, web evidence, controlled active tools) makes the missing behavioral and permission context especially concerning.

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 but does not. The description only mentions the 'active' level behavior, leaving 'passive' and 'baseline' levels unexplained. The critical parameters assessment_id and use_external_tools receive zero explanation about their meaning, valid inputs, or consequences. The mutually-exclusive nature of the levels is not clarified beyond the one note about 'active'.

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 states "运行授权评估" (run authorization assessment), which identifies a verb+resource combination, but the description is very brief and doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like anjian_create_assessment, anjian_get_assessment, or anjian_quick_assess. The meaning of "授权评估" leaves ambiguity about whether this executes, creates, or validates an assessment.

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 one usage condition: 'active' level only executes when user has separately unlocked it via terminal. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this versus anjian_create_assessment or anjian_run_controlled_active_tool, and no explanation of the relationship between assessment_id, level, and use_external_tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named explicitly.

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