maxwell-defense__describe_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add two useful behavioral facts: the call is free (no cost) and the server provides “no runtime protection,” which tempers expectations. However, it says nothing about return contents, idempotency, or side effects beyond that.

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?

Two tight fragments with no filler, and the family banner is front-loaded to establish context before the tool's function. Slightly cryptic phrasing rather than wasteful length is the only issue.

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-param describe tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: it implies scope/price metadata and disclaims protection, but an agent cannot be fully sure what the response contains or how it differs from the sibling rehearse_defense call.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% (vacuous) coverage, so per the rubric a baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify regarding parameters.

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?

“Free scope and price discovery” hints that this returns the agent's scope and pricing metadata, but it never uses a clear verb+resource phrasing (e.g. “returns the agent's advertised scope and price”). The bracketed banner describes the maxwell-defense server family, not this tool's specific action.

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 only guidance is the adjective “Free,” which implies costless invocation, but there is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling maxwell-defense__rehearse_defense or the many other *_describe_agent tools. No preconditions or exclusions are given.

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