List system misconfigurations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns network-wide detections, includes specific attributes (severity, category, fix availability, reversibility, affected-system counts), and supports filtering/pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured sentences. The first front-loads the core action, scope, examples, and returned fields; the second notes filtering and pagination. Every word adds value 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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the main returned fields and mentions filtering/pagination. All parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and the tool is a straightforward read-only list operation, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each of the 15 parameters clearly documented (e.g., severity, misconfigId, rebootRequired). The description only mentions filtering/pagination generically, adding no detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 OS/system-level misconfigurations' detected across the network, with concrete examples (firewall disabled, BitLocker off). It distinguishes from sibling tools like threats_server_misconfigurations_list by explicitly focusing on OS/system-level items.

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 for when to use this tool: when you need system/OS-level misconfigurations with severity, category, fix availability, and counts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is unambiguous enough for an agent.

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