Per-system web server misconfiguration details

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 behavioral context by stating each record represents one system with a nested servermisconfigurations array and listing the included fields (hardening ID, status, affected file path), which helps the agent predict response shape. No additional behavioral details such as pagination defaults or filtering edge cases are disclosed.

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 sentences deliver the full purpose and record structure without extraneous detail. The title is also concise and aligns with the description.

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?

For a read-only report tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear model of the response: each record is a system with a nested array of misconfigurations. Pagination and filtering are left to the schema, which fully documents them, and the annotations cover safety. This is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and filtering semantics. The description does not add anything beyond the schema regarding parameter usage, so the baseline score applies.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Retrieves' and names the resource: systems with per-system web-server misconfiguration instances, including field details. It explicitly mentions the nested servermisconfigurations array, which distinguishes it from sibling report tools like threats_system_report_system_misconfigurations. This is clear and well-scoped.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over sibling report tools, such as threats_system_report_system_misconfigurations or threats_server_misconfigurations_list. The description only states what the tool retrieves and leaves the usage decision to inference.

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