get_posture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying what the summary actually surfaces – counts and reachable sensitive assets – which is behavioral information beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then listing the specifics. Every word earns its place – no filler, no repetition. This is a model of concise, structured documentation.

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 simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains exactly what information the summary provides (attack route counts, asset and relationship counts, reachable sensitive assets) and when to use it. An agent would need nothing else to call this tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because the schema (empty) fully covers it. The description does not need to add anything here.

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 states a specific verb ('Summarize') and a clear resource ('the environment'), and enumerates exactly what the summary includes: counts of open and runtime-confirmed attack routes, mapped assets and relationships, and reachable sensitive assets. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_attack_paths or explain_attack_path, which are focused on specific enumeration or explanation rather than an overall posture snapshot.

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 phrase 'Start here to orient before enumerating anything' explicitly tells the agent when to invoke this tool (first, before any enumeration). This provides unambiguous usage context, even though it doesn't name alternatives – the siblings are implicitly the enumeration tools that follow. This is clear guidance on sequencing.

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