maxwell-defense__rehearse_defense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-activating and that it returns a model plus a local hash, which are useful behavioral traits beyond what the schema shows. But it omits whether the operation is read-only or mutating, whether permission is needed, or whether results are persisted, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 short and front-loaded: the bracketed tag, the core action, the return value, and the negative constraint all appear in under 30 words. It is efficient, though the second sentence's 'Does not...' could be folded in more naturally.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and four required integer parameters, the description is far too thin. It never explains what a 'model' contains or what the hash measurement represents, which an agent needs to interpret results. The negative caveat helps, but the definition is not complete for a four-parameter simulation tool.

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% and all four parameters (backend_cost_ms, client_p95_budget_ms, client_hashes_per_second, peak_requests_per_second) have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain units, acceptable ranges, or how the parameters interact to produce the rehearsal model, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('bounded policy rehearsal') and is distinguishable from siblings like compute-ledger or green-router, which deal with actual computation or energy certs. The bracketed qualifier 'no runtime protection' makes clear it is a simulator, not a real defense. However, 'policy rehearsal' is jargon and the phrase 'Returns a model and local hash measurement' is vague about what the tool actually produces.

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 statement 'Does not activate endpoint protection or establish energy savings' implies it should NOT be used when actual protection is required, giving some negative guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no alternatives named among the many sibling tools, and no indication of what scenario would call for a rehearsal.

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