get_security_insights

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is lighter. It adds useful substance by defining what an 'insight' is (a dangerous runtime configuration) and disclosing that a severity summary is included in the response. It says nothing about volume, pagination, or freshness of the insights.

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 short sentences, the resource definition and scope up front, the response-content note trailing. Nothing redundant and nothing padded.

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-required-param read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this covers purpose, scope, and a hint at return content (severity summary). A brief note on how it differs from get_security_posture or list_risk_scores is the only real gap.

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 100% and the single parameter is already documented there as 'Internal container ID; omit to return all containers plus a summary.' The description restates the same all-vs-one behavior without adding format or sourcing detail, so it neither compensates for nor improves on the 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (security insights), with the term glossed as 'dangerous runtime configurations' so an agent knows what data class this returns rather than guessing. Scope (all containers or one) is stated. It stops short of differentiating from plausible siblings like get_security_posture, list_risk_scores, or list_cve.

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?

Usage is only implied through the scoping sentence: query broadly for an overview, or narrow to one container. There is no explicit 'use this when' framing and no named alternative for the adjacent posture/risk-score tools, leaving the agent to infer which security-view tool applies.

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