sentinel_run_attack

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the attack actually mutates state (e.g., whether tool_poisoning permanently rewrites the tool description or restores it afterward), whether this requires prior demo setup, whether it's reversible, or what effects it has on the demo environment. The security-demonstration purpose is clear but the side effects are not.

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 one dense but efficient sentence followed by a scenario list. The scenarios are enumerated inline rather than as formatted bullet points, but it's compact and front-loaded with the core purpose first. All content earns its place, though the scenario explanations could be slightly more structured.

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?

This is a demo/attack tool in a broader demo suite with many siblings (setup_demo, setup_demo_policies, run_full_demo, reset_demo). The description doesn't clarify the order of operations relative to these tools, whether state is permanently mutated, or what observable outcomes the agent should expect. No output schema and no annotations leave substantial gaps for a tool that mutates demo state.

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 a single enum-backed parameter, and the description reiterates the four scenario options with brief parenthetical explanations. This adds marginal clarity (explaining what each scenario does), but the schema already enumerates all options. The description gives no guidance on which scenario suits which demonstration goal beyond the one-line explanations. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 verb and resource: 'Run a simulated attack scenario to demonstrate Sentinel Gateway's security capabilities.' It lists the four specific scenarios with brief explanations of each. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like sentinel_run_full_demo or sentinel_setup_demo, though the attack-focused purpose is reasonably distinct.

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 enumerates the available scenarios but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over sentinel_run_full_demo, sentinel_setup_demo, or sentinel_reset_demo. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether setup_demo must run first) or when this is appropriate vs. running the full demo.

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