Strix Deep

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness; description adds approval requirements and states it performs exploitation, but does not detail side effects or outcome storage beyond 'ingest results.'

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?

Brief, focused, and well-structured with a clear warning prefix and concise 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?

While output schema exists, the description lacks information about execution flow (async/sync), approval interaction, or result format, making it incomplete for complex usage.

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 has no descriptions; the description does not explain target, max_iterations, or how instruction is used, leaving the semantics unclear.

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?

Clearly states the tool's function (delegate deep exploitation to Strix and ingest results) and explicitly flags it as an exploit requiring approval, distinguishing it from read-only scanning tools.

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?

Provides a condition for use (requires permitted exploitation and human approval) but does not explicitly compare with similar exploit tools (e.g., exploit_chain) or indicate when to prefer this tool.

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