parse_tool_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core transformation and does not mention error handling, how tool_name influences parsing, or what happens with unsupported tools. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely has backend logic.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose. There is no fluff, and it is appropriately short for the information conveyed.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should describe return values and behavior. It does not, and the tool's complexity (3 parameters, parsing logic) is not supported by such a minimal description. The agent is left without critical context.

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%, and the description provides no explanations for the parameters output, tool_name, or output_format. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving agents without enough information to correctly set parameters.

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 function: parsing raw security tool output into structured JSON. It uses a specific verb ('parse') and resource ('raw security tool output') and accurately conveys the transformation.

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 a clear context: use when you have raw security tool output that needs to be structured. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling parse tools exist, so the context is sufficient.

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