ai_red_team

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must cover behavior. It states the output is a 'red team runbook' and 'structured framework', but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Adequate but minimal.

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 concise with two paragraphs. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, output type, and parameters effectively. Could benefit from a brief example or more detail on the runbook structure, but is largely complete for a simple tool.

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 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: system_prompt (the prompt to test) and num_test_cases (default 10, max 30). Adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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?

Clearly specifies the verb 'Generate adversarial test cases' and the resource 'AI system prompt', with a security procedure reference (SEC-005). Distinguishes itself from siblings ai_risk_classify and ai_safety_screen by its specific red-teaming focus.

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 implies usage for testing AI prompts, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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