Per-system 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 covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the nested array structure and the fact that each record represents one system (resource_id). This helps set expectations for the response shape, which is especially useful given no output schema is present.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes only necessary details about the record structure. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and brief annotations, the description provides a useful but incomplete picture. It explains the row-level structure and a few fields, but does not clarify whether systems without misconfigurations are included, pagination behavior, or how this relates to sibling misconfiguration reports. It is adequate for a basic understanding but leaves gaps.

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% with all 8 parameters fully described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance or additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to since the schema is comprehensive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') with a clear resource ('systems with their per-system OS misconfiguration instances') and explicitly defines the record structure ('Each record is one system with a nested systemmisconfigurations array'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like server misconfigurations or flat lists, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool—when needing per-system grouping of misconfigurations—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no direct comparison to siblings such as threats_system_misconfigurations_list, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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