List web server misconfigurations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the returned fields (severity, category, affected-system counts, resolution guidance) and mentions filtering/pagination. It does not contradict annotations and offers enough behavioral context for a read-only list endpoint.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a brief mention of output fields and capabilities. Every word earns its place with no 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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, output contents, and core capabilities. It doesn't detail response structure, but for a list endpoint that is acceptable. Sibling differentiation is clear from the name and description.

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions fully document each field. The description's mention of 'filtering and pagination' is a high-level summary that adds no specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves web-server hardening misconfigurations, with explicit examples (Tomcat/IIS/Apache) and the scope ('detected across the network'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like threats_system_misconfigurations_list by focusing specifically on web-server issues.

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 clear context: use this to retrieve web-server hardening misconfigurations. It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, though the tool name and sibling list make the distinction evident.

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