cyntrisec

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 states it 'Get[s] detailed explanation' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens if the finding_id is invalid. The mention of 'context, impact, and remediation steps' in returns adds some behavioral insight, but key operational details are missing.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear Arg and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by defining the tool, explaining parameters, and outlining the return value, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return scope adequately, though it lacks usage guidelines and full behavioral transparency, which holds it back from a perfect score.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'finding_id' is 'The finding ID to explain' and 'snapshot_id' is 'Optional snapshot ID (default: latest)', clarifying their roles and default behavior. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID structure).

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed explanation of a security finding', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_findings' (which likely lists findings) or 'explain_path' (which might explain attack paths), leaving room for ambiguity.

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 (e.g., needing a valid finding ID from another tool) or contrast with siblings like 'get_findings' (for listing) or 'explain_path' (for path explanations), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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