infomaniak_get_my_security

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the exact fields covered and noting it is 'Manager-private,' which conveys an access constraint. This is appropriate given the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a compact list to convey the detailed output. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what it returns, the second gives usage scenarios and access scope. No filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It clarifies the scope (current user), the content (comprehensive security fields), and appropriate usage. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no parameter-specific details, which is fine.

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 and specifically states what the tool does: it provides a security posture report for the current user, listing concrete data points (2FA, recovery email, trusted devices, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_profile or audit_account by scoping to security-specific current-user data.

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?

It explicitly suggests usage as 'a periodic security review or pre-action sanity check,' giving clear context. However, it does not name alternative tools or describe when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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