Research Guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Read-only: assembles knowledge, sends no traffic.' This goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating no traffic is sent and clarifying the internal memory-recall scoping via the stack parameter. This adds value without contradicting 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 compact and front-loaded. The primary purpose is stated in the first sentence, parameter definitions follow with backtick formatting, and the alternative is given at the end. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Given the tool's complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, read-only behavior, and routing to guided_validate for execution. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to invoke this tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: vuln_class (bug class with examples and fuzzy-name tolerance), asset (URL under test), evidence (observations like 403 or scanner hits), and stack (comma-separated technologies to scope memory recall). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Research a vulnerability class and produce an actionable testing playbook.' It uses a specific verb (research), a specific resource (vulnerability class), and a clear deliverable (playbook). It also explicitly differentiates from guided_validate by stating that executing validators should be done there, providing sibling differentiation.

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 usage context: it assembles knowledge and produces a playbook, and explicitly says 'To *execute* the validators it names, call guided_validate instead.' This gives an explicit alternative for a distinct action. However, it does not compare against other research-oriented siblings like technique_lookup or wstg_lookup, so guidance on when to choose this over those is implicit rather than explicit.

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