Prompt Classes

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

The annotations already include readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict these. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond what the annotations provide, so it meets the baseline for tools with annotations but does not exceed it.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action 'List' and the resource, making it highly efficient.

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 simple listing tool, the description provides sufficient context about what is being listed (vulnerability classes with exploit/validation prompt packs). It does not detail the output format or further nuance, but that is not critical for a list operation, and the description is complete enough for an agent to know when and how to use it.

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 no parameters, and the schema reflects this with an empty properties object (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies here—it is neither enhanced nor degraded by the description.

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 lists vulnerability classes that have an exploit/validation prompt pack, using the specific verb 'List' and a precise resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'exploit_prompt' or 'validate_findings' by focusing on enumeration of classes rather than execution or validation.

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 usage when you need to know which vulnerability classes have available prompt packs, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool. Given the large number of sibling tools, more guidance on when to choose this over others would be beneficial, but it is adequate for a simple listing operation.

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