Cymulate MCP Tools

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
With 120 tools, there are many overlapping list/get operations for different modules (e.g., env_list vs env_list_v1, multiple get_filters, multiple get_history_ids). However, descriptions are specific enough to differentiate most tools, and the fallback cymulate_api_call is explicitly a catch-all. Some ambiguity remains, but it is mitigated by clear documentation.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent cymulate_<module>_<resource>_<action> pattern, but there are notable exceptions like cymulate_health, cymulate_debug_last_request, cymulate_ttp_designer, and cymulate_killchain_designer. Versioned names (cymulate_env_list_v1) and compound actions (cymulate_ev_launched_get_configurations) also deviate slightly. Overall, the conventions are predictable but not perfectly uniform.
Tool Count1/5
120 tools is far beyond the reasonable scope for an MCP server, even for a comprehensive API wrapper. This overwhelms agents and makes selection harder. The calibration explicitly marks 50+ tools as an extreme mismatch.
Completeness5/5
The server covers nearly every domain of the Cymulate platform—EV, EA, BAS, Advanced, ASM, Immediate Threats, FKC, environments, agents, remediation, and platform analytics. CRUD operations exist for major resources, and the fallback cymulate_api_call ensures no endpoint is unreachable. The tool surface is thorough and has no obvious dead ends.
Average 3.3/5 across 120 of 120 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already state. It does not contradict the annotations, but it fails to disclose any details about the creation behavior, such as idempotency, required permissions, or side effects, even though openWorldHint=true suggests such context could be necessary.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The sentence adds no value beyond the title, making it wasted verbosity. There is no attempt to front-load useful information; it is simply a restatement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a create operation with one undocumented payload parameter, no output schema, and a large family of CRUD siblings, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not even minimally explain what an input configuration is, what the payload should include, or what the response will be, leaving the agent severely under-informed for a tool that likely requires specific input structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage for the single 'payload' parameter, and the description offers no compensation. It does not explain what the payload should contain, its structure, or any constraints, leaving the agent completely in the dark about how to construct a valid request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create an input configuration' simply restates the title 'Create EV input configuration' without adding specificity. It fails to clarify what an input configuration is or how it differs from the many other create tools in the sibling list, making it a tautology rather than a clear purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_ev_input_configs_update or cymulate_ev_input_configs_delete, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations. It adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning the output format, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as response structure or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but this brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It provides only a single sentence with a parenthetical, leaving out critical information about parameters and usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an unannotated `query` object and no output schema, the description is insufficient to fully understand how to invoke the tool and what the response will contain. It mentions format but not the query semantics or response details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines a `query` object with no detailed structure, and the schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the `query` parameter at all, leaving the agent without any semantics for what can be passed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool exports CVEs and notes the typical format (CSV/JSON download), which is clear. However, it is essentially a restatement of the title and does not differentiate from related tools like cymulate_ea_cves_list or cymulate_ea_cves_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use the export tool versus listing or getting individual CVEs, nor any mention of alternatives. The description entirely omits any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, required existence of the ID), but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, the sentence is largely redundant with the title and does not earn its place by adding value, making it under-informative rather than effectively concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with no output schema, the description fails to provide any details about the return value or behavior. The tool appears functional but the agent is left without expectations for response format or potential errors, making the context incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter, schedule_id, with no description and schema coverage of 0%. The description fails to explain that schedule_id identifies the scheduled assessment or how it is used, relying entirely on the parameter name's self-explanatory nature.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific scheduled EV assessment' merely restates the title 'Get scheduled EV assessment by ID' with 'specific' replacing 'by ID'. It adds no new distinguishing details and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like get/list operations for other resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_ev_scheduled_list or cymulate_ev_scheduled_update. The description gives no context for appropriate invocation, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It does not explain any side effects, scheduling behavior, required prior setup, or response implications. The annotations only indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, which is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It simply restates the title and adds no new information, failing to earn its place for a tool with a complex generic payload.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, minimal annotations, and a generic payload parameter. The description does not explain the payload structure, required fields, or what 'auto-run' entails, making it impossible for an agent to invoke correctly without external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema contains a single 'payload' field with no description and additionalProperties set to true, resulting in 0% schema parameter coverage. The description does not mention 'payload' at all, leaving the agent with no information about expected fields or structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('scheduled auto-run for EV threats'), which distinguishes it from list/get tools. However, it does not differentiate from similar create tools like cymulate_ev_scheduled_create, so it is not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_ev_scheduled_create or cymulate_ev_threats_get_scheduled_auto_runs. There is no mention of prerequisites, selection criteria, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—no details about return format, whether the export is synchronous, any authentication requirements, or what 'export' actually produces (e.g., a file or data payload). The description does not go beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single under-specified sentence, providing minimal information. While it is not verbose, it is not appropriately sized for a tool with a parameter that requires explanation. The lack of structure or detail makes it under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety, the description should provide more context about the export behavior and output. The description doesn't clarify what the export returns, how the query works, or any format details. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a 'query' object parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. Since there are no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description carries the full burden and completely fails to compensate. The agent has no idea what 'query' should contain or how to structure it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Export') and the resource ('exposures') from the system 'Exposure Analytics'. It distinguishes itself from sibling export tools (e.g., cymulate_ea_cves_export) by naming the specific resource, but does not differentiate from the closely related cymulate_ea_exposures_get or clarify the difference between 'export' and 'get'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_ea_exposures_get or other export tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context about choosing this tool. It only states the action without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe read nature is known. However, the description adds no further behavioral context—it doesn't explain the 'query' parameter, pagination, or output format, which are important for correct usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits crucial information such as the query parameter and usage context. Under-specification is not true conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a nested query object and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the query's purpose and the response format. It only restates the function name in sentence form, leaving the tool under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single 'query' object with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent has no explanation of how to use the query parameter, making this a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Remediation Plan tasks from Exposure Analytics', which conveys the action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cymulate_ea_tasks_get or cymulate_ea_tasks_export, so it's not a full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tasks tools (get, export, get_filters, etc.). There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond a basic create operation—no mention of side effects, required permissions, or what the created template entails. The description is effectively a restatement of the title with a context qualifier.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, with no unnecessary words. However, it adds little value over the title, and the 'in Exposure Analytics' qualifier is the only substantive addition. It is concise but not informative enough to earn full marks.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a complex free-form payload, no output schema, and no parameter guidance, the description is severely incomplete. The agent gets no help on what constitutes a valid template or how the payload should be structured, making the tool almost unusable from the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single 'payload' parameter is a free-form object with no structure described. The description provides zero information about what the payload should contain, making it impossible for the agent to construct a valid request without external knowledge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('validation template'), and adds the context 'in Exposure Analytics', which helps distinguish it from other template creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like cymulate_ev_templates_create or cymulate_ev_smart_templates_create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, return format, or scope limitations. It merely restates the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it adds little value beyond the tool name and title. It is concise but under-specified, bordering on tautological, since 'List all EV input configurations' essentially repeats the tool's name and title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It leaves unexplained the 'query' object's semantics, whether the list is paginated, and what fields are returned. For a list tool, this level of context is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'query' parameter at all. The parameter is an optional object with no property semantics defined, leaving the agent without any understanding of its purpose or format. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'List' and resource 'EV input configurations' clearly state the tool's function. It distinguishes from the sibling tools create/get/update/delete within the same resource family, but does not explicitly contrast with 'get' or other filtering options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that 'get' retrieves a specific configuration, nor does it explain the optional 'query' parameter for filtering. The sole sentence offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no further behavioral context—such as whether the launch occurs immediately, how long it takes, or what side effects to expect—so it provides minimal value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, though the brevity also contributes to missing critical details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an opaque payload, absent output schema, and no additional guidance, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent has no way to construct a valid payload or interpret the response, making this tool risky to invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'payload' is an opaque object with schema coverage 0%, meaning no property definitions are provided. The description offers zero guidance on what the payload should contain, making correct invocation nearly impossible.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create) and resource (new launched Exposure Validation assessment), distinguishing it from scheduled or template creation tools via the word 'launched'. It is specific but could be more explicit about immediate execution versus scheduling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over siblings like cymulate_ev_scheduled_create or cymulate_ev_templates_create. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no additional behavioral context such as required permissions, payload validation, side effects, or idempotency. It merely restates the action without going beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than helpful conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with a free-form payload object and no output schema, the description gives almost no context about what an EV resource is, what payload content is expected, or what the response will be. This is severely incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'payload' with no description and additionalProperties:{} allowing any object. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what fields or structure the payload should have. This completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'EV resource', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools. However, 'EV resource' is not defined further, so the purpose is clear but not deeply precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_ev_resources_get or cymulate_ev_templates_create. The description only states the action without context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. For a mutation tool, it does not disclose whether the payload replaces the entire scenario or merges with existing content, what happens to unspecified fields, or if there are side effects. With minimal annotation coverage, the description carries a heavy burden that it fails to meet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single short sentence that immediately communicates the core action. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted words. While under-specified in other dimensions, conciseness is not a flaw here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the payload structure, the meaning of scenario_id, any constraints, or what the expected outcome/return value is. This is effectively a bare-bones stub that leaves the agent without essential operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters. The description does not explain the meaning of 'scenario_id' or the expected structure/format of 'payload', leaving the agent to guess. This is a significant gap since the payload is a generic object with no defined schema or guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing EV scenario' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (EV scenario), making it distinct from sibling operations like create, delete, get, or list. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not elaborate on what exactly can be updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, whether this should be used for modifying existing scenarios, or when to prefer cymulate_ev_templates_update or other update-related tools. The usage context is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, validation rules, or required permissions. It merely repeats the create action without new information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified, conveying minimal value beyond the tool name and title. It is not verbose, but it lacks substantive detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one nested object parameter, no output schema, and no payload guidance, the description is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke this tool. There is no information about required fields, examples, or expected behavior, making the tool effectively a black box.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter is 'payload', an opaque object with additionalProperties allowing anything. The description provides zero explanation of what fields the payload should contain, and schema description coverage is 0%. The agent has no guidance on how to construct a valid request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new EV smart template.' It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'cymulate_ev_templates_create' (regular templates) by using 'smart template' and the EV prefix, though it does not explicitly call out the difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of what makes a smart template different from a regular template. The description simply states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what the logs contain, how they are structured, or any rate limits or pagination behavior. It contributes no value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks substance, making it minimally acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one free-form query parameter and no output schema, requiring the description to clarify usage and return behavior. The description is only a bare restatement of the tool's purpose, leaving agents unable to construct a meaningful request or interpret a response. This is a significant completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema includes a single 'query' parameter that is an open-object with arbitrary key-value pairs, yet the description provides zero explanation of how to use it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description completely fails to compensate, leaving the agent without any insight into valid query fields or expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves platform activity logs, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('platform activity logs'). It is sufficiently distinct from the sibling tools at a basic level, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other log-related tools like cymulate_platform_trace_log.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor any context about the intended use case. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or examples of appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the export returns a file, a URL, or data directly, or whether it is synchronous. It provides no value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, directly stating the action and resource. While it is terse, it is not verbose or poorly structured. It could benefit from additional details, but the conciseness itself is appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the export returns (e.g., file, JSON, URL) or any special behavior like long-running operations. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's input/output behavior. The description is too sparse to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'query' parameter at all. The parameter is a generic object with additionalProperties, and without any explanation, the agent cannot infer how to construct or use the query. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Export') and the resource ('Remediation Plan tasks'), making it distinct from other task-related siblings like list or get. However, it lacks specificity about the export format or scope, so it does not fully distinguish itself from other export tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools like cymulate_ea_tasks_list or cymulate_ea_cves_export. The only implied usage is the literal action of exporting tasks, which is not enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description merely restates the title and adds no behavior beyond what annotations already indicate. Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description does not explain any additional side effects, required permissions, or process implications of creating an environment.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specifying rather than appropriately concise. It repeats the tool title verbatim and fails to include any useful guidance. As a result, it doesn't earn its place as a meaningful addition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single free-form payload object and no output schema, so the description must carry substantial explanatory weight. It fails to cover essential details like payload structure, example values, or behavior on success/failure. The description leaves the agent to guess what a correct request looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines a single 'payload' object with no property descriptions and additionalProperties allowed, so schema coverage is 0%. The description provides no clues about what the payload should contain, such as environment name, configuration, or network settings. With no other documentation, the agent has no basis to construct a valid payload.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Create' and clearly identifies the resource as a Cymulate environment. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cymulate_env_get, cymulate_env_delete, and cymulate_env_update by indicating a creation action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or alternatives among the many sibling tools. There is no comparison to other environment-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already communicate that the operation is safe and repeatable, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention whether assets include specific types, how filters affect results, or any pagination or response characteristics. Since it adds zero value beyond the annotations, a low score is warranted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though that is more a completeness issue than a structure flaw.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is no output schema and only sparse annotations, the description should explain what assets are returned, how filters work, and what response to expect. It does none of this. The tool appears to be a read-only list operation, but the lack of return format or filter semantics leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'filters' is an object with no property descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what filters are valid or how they affect asset listing. With no compensation from the description, the parameter semantics are essentially undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('assets') with a scope ('across Cymulate environments'). It is unambiguous and distinct in subject, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like cymulate_env_list or cymulate_ev_resources_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only restates the tool's purpose without mentioning prerequisites, exclusions, or related sibling tools that might be more appropriate for specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as permanence, reversibility, or side effects. It merely repeats the action without enriching the safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler, which is efficient. However, it is so minimal that it resembles a restatement of the tool name, adding little informational value beyond the title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no output schema or parameter details, the description is insufficient. It does not communicate the implications of deletion, any dependencies, or what the outcome looks like, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter (config_id) is not explained. While the name suggests it identifies the configuration, the description provides no explicit meaning or source for the ID, leaving the agent to infer.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('EV input configuration'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like other delete operations, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, alternative tools, or any prerequisites. The description is purely a statement of action without context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as return format, errors, or authentication requirements. It merely restates the operation without enriching what annotations already convey.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks essential context: what an EV input configuration is, what the response looks like, and how config_id relates to other tools. The absence of an output schema increases the need for description-level clarity, which is not provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter config_id. The description does not explain what config_id represents, its format, or how to discover valid values (e.g., from the list tool). It adds no meaning beyond the parameter name itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific EV input configuration' uses a clear verb and resource, and 'specific' implies retrieval by ID, distinguishing it from the list sibling. However, it does not explicitly state 'by ID' (the title does) or reference sibling tools, so it lacks strong differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_ev_input_configs_list. It gives no context on how to obtain config_id or when a get is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning this is a write operation not classified as destructive. However, the description adds no additional behavioral details such as whether the update is a partial patch or full replacement, how missing fields are handled, or any side effects. It contributes nothing beyond what the annotations and the generic verb 'update' already imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at one sentence, but it merely restates the tool's title and adds no new information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, and the single sentence fails to earn its place by providing any practical value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the free-form payload, lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what an EV input configuration is, what fields are updatable, how to structure the payload, whether the update is additive or overwriting, or what success/failure responses look like. This makes safe and correct usage highly unlikely without external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero information about config_id or payload. The payload is a free-form object with additionalProperties: {}, making its expected structure completely opaque. The description fails to explain what fields the payload can contain or how the update is applied, which is essential for correctly invoking the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Update) and the specific resource (EV input configuration), which visually distinguishes it from sibling update tools for schedules, templates, scenarios, and other entities. It is unambiguous in naming the target of the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as create, delete, or get for input configs, nor does it mention prerequisites like the need for an existing configuration or how to obtain a valid config_id. Sibling tool names suggest related operations but the description itself provides no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare action. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, payload expectations, or whether the scenario is created in a draft or active state, leaving the agent without useful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but also redundant with the title and tool name. It lacks substance, so while it does not contain fluff, it also fails to earn its place by adding new information beyond the structured fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with an opaque payload object and no output schema, the description is severely underwhelming. It explains nothing about the payload, expected response, required context, or edge cases, leaving the agent without the information needed to use the tool reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required 'payload' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the payload at all. The agent receives no hint about what structure or fields the payload should contain, making it nearly impossible to correctly construct the request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action 'Create' and the resource 'Exposure Validation scenario', expanding the 'EV' acronym. It uniquely identifies this as the creation tool for scenarios, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage templates, smart templates, or scheduled scenarios.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_ev_scheduled_create or cymulate_ev_templates_create. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, offering no context beyond a generic create operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Delete', which is already implied by the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). It adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the deletion is permanent, if it affects existing scheduled runs, or if any confirmation or special permissions are required. No contradiction with annotations, but zero added transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence 'Delete an EV scenario' is essentially a restatement of the tool title, adding no new information. It does not earn its place as a meaningful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description leaves out critical context: what happens upon deletion, whether the scenario can be recovered, how it interacts with other scenario-related tools, and what success/failure responses look like. The annotations convey only superficial safety hints, not the full behavioral picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the required parameter 'scenario_id' at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the schema's minimal semantics but fails to explain what the ID refers to, where to find it, or any format requirements. The agent is left without any parameter guidance beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'EV scenario', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform other operations (update, create, get) on the same resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no usage guidance whatsoever. It does not mention when to use this tool versus the similarly named 'cymulate_ev_scheduled_delete' or 'cymulate_ev_launched_delete', nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions for deletion. It simply restates the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description restates the title without adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. Although the annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent, the description provides no additional details such as response format, authentication requirements, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified and adds little beyond the title. It is not overly verbose, yet it lacks substantive content to fully earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only), but the description offers no context about what an EV template group is, what the response contains, or how to use the result. Without an output schema, the description should clarify return value expectations, which it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter (group_id) with no description, and the description does not explain what group_id represents or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but given the 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, and it fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the resource (EV template group) and the action (Get), and the qualifier 'specific' implies retrieval by ID, which aligns with the title. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cymulate_ev_template_groups_list, but the contrast is evident from the names and the singular/plural distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to call the list endpoint to obtain group IDs or what prerequisites exist. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no context about side effects, such as whether the assessment is created as a draft, launched immediately, or scheduled. It also doesn't disclose required permissions or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action. It is appropriately concise and avoids unnecessary wording, though it is somewhat under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one complex nested parameter with no useful documentation, no output schema, and no description of post-creation behavior (e.g., whether an ID is returned or if a separate launch step is needed). Given the extensive list of sibling tools, the description is insufficient for confident use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'payload' is described in the schema as 'Assessment payload (matches OpenAPI schema)', which is unhelpful and effectively a placeholder. The tool description provides no additional details on required fields, structure, or examples, leaving the agent without enough information to construct a valid payload.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the specific resource 'Advanced Scenarios (Purple Team) assessment', making the primary action unambiguous. It distinguishes this from other assessment types, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar create/launch sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_advanced_launch_assessment or cymulate_bas_launch. The description is a single factual statement with no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no additional context about side effects, required assessment state, or what changes occur when re-running. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose anything beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence and is concise, with no filler. However, the phrase 'post-assessment pre-requirement' is awkward and slightly confusing, which detracts from structural clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and minimal parameter documentation, the description leaves key details ambiguous: what the checks involve, whether the assessment must be in a specific state, and what the result indicates. It is not complete enough for an agent to use this tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention 'assessment_id' or explain how it relates to the operation. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only says 'for a launched assessment,' indirectly implying the parameter. This is minimal and insufficient for clear invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Re-run') and identifies the resource ('post-assessment pre-requirement checks for a launched assessment'). It implies a distinct action from the sibling 'cymulate_ev_assess_prereqs_get', though the phrase 'post-assessment pre-requirement' is slightly awkward and not fully precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'cymulate_ev_assess_prereqs_get'. There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when re-running checks is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which covers the safety profile. However, the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the name: no mention of pagination, filtering via query, response format, or any quirks. It essentially restates the title.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a nested query object, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is under-specified. It lacks information about how to filter results (query object), what fields are returned, or any limits. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter ('query') with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention it at all, leaving the agent without any understanding of how to construct or use the query object. This is a major gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('launched Exposure Validation assessments'). The word 'all' signals a collection operation, distinguishing it from single-item tools like cymulate_ev_launched_get, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling list tools (e.g., scheduled vs. launched, templates vs. assessments). The optional 'query' parameter is not mentioned, so the agent gets no hints on filtering or intended use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description merely restates the tool title and adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description does not explain consequences like irreversibility or required permissions. It fails to provide any additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is essentially identical to the tool title, making it redundant and lacking in informative value. While concise, it does not earn its place beyond restating the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of annotations, the description still lacks important context. It does not explain what schedule_id is, whether the deletion is permanent, or what effects it has on related entities. The description is too terse for reliable tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention the schedule_id parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no semantic guidance about what schedule_id represents or where to obtain it. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: deleting a scheduled EV assessment. The verb 'Delete' is specific and the resource 'scheduled EV assessment' distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_ev_scheduled_update and cymulate_ev_scheduled_get. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be preferred. The only implied usage is the action itself, but no explicit direction is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, payload requirements, or any specific behavior beyond the act of creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and readable, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested object parameter, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what an EV template is, what fields are required, or what the response will look like, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid request.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single 'payload' object parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The agent receives no guidance on what the payload should contain, making the parameter semantics completely opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'EV template', which distinguishes it from sibling list/get/update/delete tools. Even though it is terse, it precisely identifies the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_ev_templates_update or cymulate_ev_smart_templates_create. No context or prerequisites are provided, so the agent must infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds minimal behavioral context. The word 'existing' hints that the template must already exist, but it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning its place by clearly stating the core action. However, it is under-specified, but conciseness is about structure, and it performs well on that front.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a free-form payload object and no output schema, yet the description provides no details on payload structure, update semantics, or expected behavior. It is far from complete, especially given that nested objects and no schema descriptions place a higher burden on the description to explain usage. This is completely inadequate for an update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate at all. It does not explain what 'payload' should contain or how 'template_id' is used, leaving the agent without any guidance for filling the required parameters. The description adds no value beyond what the parameter names imply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update an existing EV template' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (EV template), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create. It is not a tautology since it adds context about the target being pre-existing, helping differentiate from the sibling create tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs to modify an existing EV template, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. It lacks context about prerequisites (like needing a template_id) or when to prefer update over create/delete, so it only meets the implied usage level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the read-only behavior is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the query parameter supports filtering, pagination, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict annotations but provides zero extra disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the action and resource, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, but the opaque query parameter and lack of output schema leave important gaps. The description does not explain the meaning of the query object, what data is returned, or any usage nuances. The minimal description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with the correct parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single 'query' object parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. There is no hint about what fields the query object accepts or how filtering works. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'Cymulate platform users,' clearly stating the tool's action. However, it merely restates the title with the addition of 'Cymulate' and does not differentiate among the many sibling list tools. It lacks any scope qualifiers but is unambiguous about the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply restates the function without mentioning use cases such as retrieving all users or comparing to other info tools like cymulate_info_activity_center.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description merely repeats the 'get' nature without adding any additional behavioral context (e.g., what details are returned, whether the template must exist, or any prerequisites). The description does not contradict annotations but also adds no transparency beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No superfluous words or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple getter with no output schema and one parameter, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what constitutes 'details', what the response looks like, or how to use template_id. Sibling tools with similar names could confuse an agent without further context on 'Advanced Scenarios'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, template_id, is defined in the schema with just a type and minLength. The description mentions 'a specific' template, implying template_id identifies the template, but does not explain how to obtain the ID, its format, or its relationship to other resources. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Get details') and the resource ('a specific Advanced Scenarios template'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling template getters by specifying 'Advanced Scenarios', but does not elaborate on what Advanced Scenarios are or how this differs from similarly named tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_advanced_list_templates or other template getters. The description gives no context for when a user should call this specific getter instead of a list or another category's getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds no additional context such as irreversibility, impact on associated resources, or error behavior. It merely restates the deletion, providing no value beyond the structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically correct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object. However, its extreme brevity means it under-specifies, so it doesn't fully earn its place as a useful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation, the description lacks important context about consequences, prerequisites, or what happens after deletion. Although annotations provide generic safety flags, the description itself is insufficient for a complete understanding, and there is no mention of return values or error states despite no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter (environment_id), and the description does not mention it at all. With no parameter descriptions, the description must compensate, but it completely fails to explain what environment_id is or how it should be used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the exact resource 'Cymulate environment', distinguishing it from sibling delete tools (e.g., cymulate_ev_templates_delete, cymulate_env_update) by naming the resource type. It is a clear, specific statement of the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without context such as 'Use this instead of env_update for permanent removal' or any preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not describe return format, errors, pagination, or any caveats, and is consistent with the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks context about what an EV scenario is, what the return value looks like, or any prerequisites. The description is too sparse to fully inform an agent in a large sibling-tool environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the 'scenario_id' parameter beyond the vague 'specific EV scenario'. It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('specific EV scenario'), which distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete actions. However, it does not explicitly mention 'by ID' or differentiate from other get tools like cymulate_ev_templates_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of use cases, exclusions, or related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), open-world effects (openWorldHint=true), and non-destructive action (destructiveHint=false). The description adds nothing beyond the basic scheduling action—no details on payload needs, idempotency, or side effects—so it contributes minimal additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point, using clear and front-loaded language. Though it is brief, it is not bloated and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a free-form payload and no output schema, so the description must provide more context to be usable. It only states the action, leaving payload structure, return values, scheduling parameters, and any prerequisites unexplained. The sibling-tool context suggests a CRUD family, but the description lacks the detail needed to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema defines a single generic 'payload' object with no documented properties, and the description makes no mention of the parameter. With 0% schema description coverage and a free-form payload, the agent has no guidance on how to construct or what to include in the payload, representing a severe gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Schedule' and identifies the resource as 'a new Exposure Validation assessment', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update, delete, list, and get. It accurately conveys the purpose even without consulting the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as cymulate_ev_launched_create for immediate assessments, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is implicit in the name, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, response format, or handling of filters. It merely restates the tool's purpose without disclosing any side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, achieving perfect conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite its simplicity, the description is incomplete because it fails to explain the 'filters' parameter and does not clarify how it differs from cymulate_env_list_v1. The lack of an output schema also means the return format is unspecified, leaving the agent with insufficient information for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one optional 'filters' object with no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not mention the filters parameter at all, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance on how to construct or use filters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists all Cymulate environments, using the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'Cymulate environments'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cymulate_env_list_assets and other list tools by focusing on environments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of cymulate_env_list_v1 or related environment tools, so an agent cannot differentiate based on the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description merely repeats 'Delete' and adds no additional behavioral context, such as irreversibility, required permissions, or effects on related resources. It provides no value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, directly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately concise with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient for a straightforward delete operation, but it omits usage guidelines and parameter semantics that are crucial when a large sibling set includes similar delete tools. An agent cannot reliably determine when to choose this over alternatives or how to populate assessment_id correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter, assessment_id, with zero description coverage. The description 'specific launched EV assessment' does not explain how assessment_id is structured, where to obtain it, or any constraints beyond the schema's type and minLength. This is insufficient for a tool with a single parameter and no schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a specific launched EV assessment' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (launched EV assessment), using a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cymulate_ev_scheduled_delete by specifying 'launched' rather than 'scheduled'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_ev_scheduled_delete, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing to first list launched assessments to obtain a valid assessment_id. It simply states what it does without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior, and the description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, error handling, or permissions. It merely restates the action without disclosing additional traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, simple sentence that directly states the operation. It is extremely concise with no unnecessary words, and every part is meaningful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter read operation with readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any context about expected output or behavior when the resource is not found, and provides no differentiation from sibling get tools. It is sufficient but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% because the description does not mention resource_id. Although the schema provides the name and type, the description fails to compensate for the low coverage by explaining the parameter's role or any contextual semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb (Get) and resource (EV resource), and 'a specific' implies retrieval by a unique identifier, distinguishing it from list operations. However, it does not explicitly say 'by ID' in the description, only in the title, so it slightly misses full clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like cymulate_ev_resources_list or cymulate_ev_resources_get_filters. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the resources include assets and payloads, but it does not disclose filtering behavior, pagination, or the return format, which are relevant operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource type. Every word contributes meaning, though it could have been slightly more structured or expanded with concrete examples to earn a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks key context: the query parameter's role, what the response looks like, and which specific resource types are included beyond the vague 'etc.' This leaves the agent without enough detail to confidently invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines a single optional 'query' object with no description, and the tool description does not mention the query parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to explain the parameter's purpose but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists Exposure Validation resources and gives examples (assets, payloads), distinguishing it from other list tools like templates_list or threats_list. However, 'resources' is somewhat broad and the trailing 'etc.' is vague, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_ev_resources_get or the many other list endpoints. The description only states what the tool does, not why or when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already convey that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds only the phrase 'all scheduled,' which is minimal extra behavioral context; it does not explain pagination, filtering behavior, or response details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy: 'List all scheduled Exposure Validation assessments.' Every word contributes to the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the minimal schema (one undocumented nested query object), no output schema, and no parameter guidance, the description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool with confidence in filtering or expected results. Annotations cover safety but not functional completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the optional 'query' object or its purpose. Since the schema provides only a generic additionalProperties structure, the description leaves the agent without any guidance on how to use the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all scheduled Exposure Validation assessments.' clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (scheduled EV assessments), and the word 'scheduled' distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like cymulate_ev_launched_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools such as cymulate_ev_scheduled_get or cymulate_ev_scheduled_create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation aspect is known. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond 'update', such as partial vs full replacement, required ownership, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specifying rather than being concisely informative; it repeats the title almost verbatim, which limits its value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a complex nested 'payload' object. The minimal description is completely inadequate for an agent to construct a valid request; it lacks any explanation of what should go into the payload or how the update behaves.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description makes no attempt to explain the parameters. 'schedule_id' is self-explanatory by name, but 'payload' is an opaque generic object with additionalProperties allowed, and the description gives zero clues about its expected structure or required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Update' and names the exact resource 'scheduled EV assessment', making the action unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and get by both verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_ev_scheduled_create or cymulate_ev_scheduled_delete. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when an update is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond what the title implies. It does not disclose the return format, error behavior for non-existent IDs, or any rate limits or access requirements. The description is essentially a restatement of the title, adding no supplemental transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, brief sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, but as a concise statement of purpose it is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, annotations covering read-only), the description could be considered minimally adequate. However, it omits any mention of how to discover a template_id (e.g., via the list sibling), what the response contains, or typical usage scenarios. With many sibling tools for related resources, the lack of contextual linkage reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema shows one required string parameter 'template_id' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'template_id' refers to, where to find it, or any format expectations. While the title says 'by ID', the description text itself does not add semantic meaning to the parameter, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title explicitly states 'Get smart template by ID' and the description 'Get a specific EV smart template' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (EV smart template). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_ev_smart_templates_list (which lists multiple) and cymulate_ev_smart_templates_create (which creates), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the list tool. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the template_id from the list) or exclude scenarios where this tool is not appropriate. There is no context about when a get-by-ID is preferred over listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'latest' and 'selected BAS module', but it does not disclose additional traits such as return format, pagination, or limits. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is easy to read and understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is still too sparse. It does not clarify what 'executive report results' contain, how they differ from similar BAS report tools, or any usage context. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's return value or appropriate use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the module parameter as 'selected BAS module' but provides no explanation of the enum values or any additional semantics beyond the schema's property name. This adds only minimal value over the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as fetching 'latest executive report results' for a selected BAS module, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cymulate_bas_get_executive_report or cymulate_bas_get_latest_technical, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative BAS report tools. The description only states what it does, without mentioning scenarios, exclusions, or referring to siblings, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as return format, pagination, or dependency on prior calls. It merely restates the module scoping already evident from the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose without redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits important context: what 'latest' refers to, whether a prior BAS run is required, what the technical report contains, and any relation to other BAS tools. No output schema exists, so the description should have provided more details but does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It only references 'selected BAS module' without elaborating on the enum values or how the module affects the report. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets the latest technical report for a selected BAS module, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cymulate_bas_get_technical_report, which likely retrieves a report by specific ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_bas_get_technical_report or cymulate_bas_get_latest_results. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a module selected or a prior history call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that filters are optional, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, default limits, or data source nuances.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the key information. Every word earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but the description omits details about the query filter structure and the return format, especially since there is no output schema. The lack of pagination/filter guidance makes the description incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one opaque 'query' parameter with arbitrary properties and 0% coverage. The description mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't explain what filters are available or how to structure the query object, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly construct arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists CVEs from Exposure Analytics, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between list and get/export operations implicitly through the wording, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like cymulate_ea_cves_get or cymulate_ea_cves_export. The description implies usage for listing CVEs but doesn't provide context for choosing it over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which already establish this as a safe read operation. The description adds the 'all' scope but omits any additional behavioral context such as pagination, filtering via the query parameter, or potential large response sizes. This meets the minimum bar but does not exceed it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, but the lack of parameter or return information prevents a perfect score for structure, as additional useful details could have been included without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps. The query parameter is completely unexplained, no return format is indicated (though no output schema exists), and there is no context about how this differs from the many sibling list tools. The description does not fully equip an agent to use the tool correctly, especially regarding the optional query.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one optional parameter 'query' with no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not explain what this parameter does or how it affects the results. In fact, saying 'List all' could be misinterpreted as meaning the query parameter is irrelevant. The description adds no value to the schema and fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and explicitly names the resource 'Exposure Validation templates', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like cymulate_ev_smart_templates_list or cymulate_template_groups_list. The word 'all' clarifies the scope as returning the full set of templates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_ev_templates_get, cymulate_ev_smart_templates_list, or cymulate_advanced_list_templates. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, but the description adds no additional context about side effects, asynchronous execution, required permissions, or potential external interactions. It simply states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the required assessment_id and an open-ended options object, the description is under-specified. It does not explain how to obtain the assessment ID, what options are available, or what the launch returns or how to monitor it. No output schema exists, so the description should provide more context to complete the operational picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for properties, and the tool description fails to explain the meaning of assessment_id or the options object. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name. The options parameter is entirely ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Launch' with a clear resource ('previously-created Advanced Scenarios assessment'), distinguishing it from creation, listing, and result retrieval tools among siblings. It clearly states what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the action 'Launch' and the resource type, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_advanced_create_assessment or cymulate_advanced_get_assessment_result. No when-to-use or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already convey (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It does not mention pagination, response format, or any other operational details, which is a gap given there is no output schema. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and front-loaded, though it is quite minimal and could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming bloated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient to convey the core action. However, it lacks any mention of what the returned assessments look like or how this fits into the broader workflow, which would be helpful but is not critical for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, there is no schema to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description needs to add no parameter-specific meaning, and the lack of parameters is already explicit in the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('List') and a specific resource ('all Advanced Scenarios assessments'), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like cymulate_advanced_list_templates. It directly matches the tool name and title, leaving little ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply repeats the tool's purpose without mentioning context, prerequisites, or exclusions, failing to help an agent choose among the many list tools in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or asynchronous behavior. The note about template_id is parameter-related, not behavioral.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise prerequisite and parameter hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool initiates an action and there is no output schema, the description should explain what the response looks like or how to track progress. It does not mention return values, asynchronous execution, or how to handle results. This is a significant gap for a launch tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that template_id is required for most modules (despite not being in the schema's required list) and that module-specific fields belong in options. This helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond simple field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Launch a Breach & Attack Simulation assessment on the selected module.' It specifies the resource (BAS assessment) and scope (selected module), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cymulate_advanced_launch_assessment, which likely overlaps in intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite (template_id required for most modules) and a hint about organizing parameters (options for module-specific fields), but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools are referenced, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description is consistent with these annotations but adds no additional behavioral context, such as what filters are available or whether any side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what filter options are returned, but it does not. Combined with the poorly documented parameter, the description is under-specified for reliable invocation, even for a low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'filters' is an object with additionalProperties and no description in the schema, resulting in 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain what this parameter represents or how it should be used, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves filter options for Remediation Plan tasks, using the specific verb 'Get' and a precise resource. This distinguishes it from sibling get_filters tools by naming the domain (EA tasks / Remediation Plan).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_ea_tasks_list or other get_filters tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, with no explicit when-to-use or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the fact that it gets one specific item. No details about return format or error behavior are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single succinct sentence with no wasted words, making it very easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation, the description is minimal and lacks context on when to use relative to siblings, how the ID is obtained, and what the response contains. Given no output schema, more detail would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the assessment_id parameter or its source. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a specific launched Exposure Validation assessment.' It differentiates this from list, create, delete, and configuration/filter tools among siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_ev_launched_list or cymulate_ev_scheduled_get. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as return format, pagination, or the meaning of 'configurations'. No contradictions, but also no value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It only says 'available' without describing the response structure, use case, or relationship to sibling scheduled tools. An agent lacks enough detail to fully understand the tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description needs no parameter information. It doesn't add anything, but nothing is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a 'Get' action targeting 'scheduled-assessment configurations', using an understandable verb+resource structure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cymulate_ev_scheduled_get or cymulate_ev_scheduled_list, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. It only states what the tool does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond 'specific finding' and 'detailed information', and does not explain return format or error behavior, but it is consistent with the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetitions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id operation with read-only annotations, the description is minimally viable but does not explicitly tie the action to the required finding_id parameter or specify what 'detailed information' includes. Since there is no output schema, a bit more context would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter, finding_id, with zero description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or add any meaning beyond the schema, though the parameter name is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('specific finding'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like cymulate_findings_search or cymulate_advanced_get_findings, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_findings_search. It simply states what the tool does without any when-to-use context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns with those. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no mention of result format, pagination, or prerequisites. The description is essentially a restatement of the title.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant or irrelevant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter input and the presence of readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from clarifying what 'results' includes (e.g., raw data, summary, or report format) and whether any assessment state is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what assessment_id is, where to find it, or its expected format. The phrase 'specific Advanced Scenarios assessment' minimally connects the ID to the resource, but it does not compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (results for a specific Advanced Scenarios assessment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cymulate_advanced_get_findings and cymulate_bas_get_latest_results by specifying the exact assessment type and result scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_findings or list_assessments. It only implies usage through the phrase 'specific Advanced Scenarios assessment,' but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already present, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not specify what 'dashboard data' includes, whether it's aggregated, or any specifics about the return value. However, there is no contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with eight words, directly stating the action and resource. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves ambiguity about the exact contents of the dashboard data. It doesn't explain what metrics or summaries are returned, which would be useful since no output schema is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers them trivially. The description is not expected to explain parameter semantics when none exist, so the baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and names the specific resource 'Advanced Scenarios / Purple Team dashboard data', making it clear what the tool retrieves. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling dashboard tool 'cymulate_platform_mitre_dashboard', earning a 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent gets no help in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that filters go in the request body, which is a useful behavioral note beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss pagination behavior, response format, or potential limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word contributes: 'search findings', 'across the platform', 'with filters', and the note about request body. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the search returns, but it does not. It also omits any mention of pagination, even though the schema defines it. For a search tool with nested objects and multiple sibling tools, this description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: 'filters' has only 'Filter body', pagination has no description. The tool description adds examples of filter keys (severity, module, MITRE tag, date range) which helps understand the filters parameter. However, it does not explain pagination semantics, leaving that gap partially filled by schema constraints (page/limit min/max).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches findings across the platform with filters, providing a specific verb ('search') and resource ('findings'). It distinguishes from siblings like cymulate_findings_get_filters (which likely returns filter options) and cymulate_findings_get_info, though it does not explicitly compare to similar 'get_findings' tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions filters go in the request body, but does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so there is no contradiction. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Get... by ID', not disclosing error conditions or output format. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still provides little additional transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 10 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is mostly complete for a simple read-only tool with good annotations, but it omits the role of the module parameter and doesn't clarify how it relates to other report tools like the technical report. This could lead to incorrect usage without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which maps to assessment_id, but it does not explain the module parameter at all, despite its enum values. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Get' and the resource 'executive report' for a specific assessment by ID, making it clear what the tool returns. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling report tools like get_technical_report or get_latest_results, so it's clear but lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need an executive report for a specific assessment, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the technical report. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which match the 'List' action. The description adds only the 'selected BAS module' scope, providing minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('List templates') and includes the resource scope. There is no wasted wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool, the description covers the core action but omits details about the response format, module value meanings, or any limitations. Given no output schema and sparse parameter descriptions, it is minimally adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'selected BAS module' but does not explain the enum values or what each module represents, leaving the module parameter semantics largely unspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists templates for a selected BAS module, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cymulate_advanced_list_templates, which also list templates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing templates for a BAS module, but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It lacks exclusions and does not compare with other template-listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, making the safety profile clear. The description adds no additional behavioral detail (e.g., not-found behavior, return structure) but does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, capturing the core function efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter getter, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks any indication of the returned data or how this differs from related environment getters like cymulate_env_get_rules or cymulate_env_get_connectors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain environment_id beyond its name, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema-level documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get a specific Cymulate environment' with a clear verb and resource, and the title adds 'by ID.' It distinguishes the tool from list/update/delete siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb 'get' and the required environment_id parameter, but the description offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over cymulate_env_list or environment sub-resource getters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the annotations, such as response format, error behavior, or scoping constraints. It simply restates the purpose, providing no extra transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence ('Get a specific EV threat.') with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID operation, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not describe the return value or any potential error conditions, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Despite this, the tool is simple enough that the missing details are not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (threat_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, adding no meaning beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific EV threat'), and the title adds 'by ID', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_ev_threats_list (which lists all threats) and cymulate_ev_threats_get_filters (which returns filters). It is unambiguous and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a single threat by ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like cymulate_ev_threats_list or cymulate_ev_threats_get_filters. There is no 'when not to use' or alternative naming, so it falls to 'implied usage'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond a generic 'all threats' statement; it does not disclose that the query parameter can filter results, nor does it mention pagination or return format. Since it adds no value beyond annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the core action and resource immediately, making it easy to scan and process. No unnecessary details are included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a simple surface, the tool has a nested query parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain filtering and return behavior. It does neither. The description fails to mention that the tool accepts a query filter, leaving a critical functional gap for agents invoking it correctly. The minimal description is inadequate for a tool with this parameter complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the only parameter 'query' is an object with additionalProperties, meaning arbitrary filters. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its structure and purpose. With zero compensation in the description, the parameter semantics are fully unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all Exposure Validation threats in the catalog' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Exposure Validation threats'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cymulate_ev_threats_get (which fetches a specific threat) and cymulate_ev_threats_get_filters (which retrieves filter options). The scope is explicit ('in the catalog'), making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is used when you need a catalog of all threats, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'for a single threat, use threats_get' or 'for filter options, use threats_get_filters', leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description is consistent. However, it adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., return format, error cases, or relationship to assessment lifecycle), leaving the agent with only the safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and conveys the core function efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain where assessment_id comes from, what the response contains, or how it fits with other FKC scenario tools, making the tool only minimally usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description for assessment_id, and the description does not clarify it. It mentions 'payload' but does not explicitly connect it to assessment_id, leaving the agent uncertain about what value to pass.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get detection results), the resource (FKC Scenarios payload), and specificity (specific payload). It is distinct from sibling tools like cymulate_fkc_scenarios_get_template or list_templates, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context such as needing a completed assessment. The description only states the action without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description ('Get details') is consistent with these. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as response format, authentication needs, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is immediately clear what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but the description lacks important context: it does not specify what 'details' are included, how to find a template_id, or any guidance on usage. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return structure, but it does not. The overall context is minimal.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no description for template_id (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only says 'specific template' without explaining the format of the ID or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory to a degree, but the description provides minimal additional meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Full Kill-Chain Scenarios template'), clearly distinguishing this tool from list_templates and other sibling get_template tools. It directly states what the tool does: retrieves details for a specific template.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the numerous sibling tools with similar names (e.g., cymulate_ev_templates_get, cymulate_bas_get_template, cymulate_advanced_get_template), there is no differentiation or context about when this specific FKC scenarios tool should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'coverage heatmap' to clarify the data nature but does not disclose return format, filtering behavior, or how the optional 'query' parameter affects results. This is a minimal addition beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is zero wasted text, and the parenthetical 'coverage heatmap' adds useful specificity. It is appropriately concise for the tool's apparent simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one parameter, the parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a significant gap. There is no output schema, so the description should explain at least the general shape of the return value. The phrase 'coverage heatmap' hints at output but does not cover parameter usage or response structure. Given the low complexity, a complete description would provide query usage examples or a link to API docs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'query' with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention it. The agent has no guidance on what keys or values to provide in the 'query' object, making parameter usage essentially undocumented. The description provides no compensatory information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves MITRE ATT&CK dashboard data with a specific qualifier of 'coverage heatmap'. This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('MITRE ATT&CK dashboard data'), which distinguishes it from other dashboard tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied by the name and description: use this to get MITRE ATT&CK coverage data. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other dashboard-like siblings (e.g., advanced_get_dashboard, platform_score_by_control), nor does it provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the concept of 'auto-remediation' but fails to explain the concrete effects on integrations, reversibility, or any required prior steps. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, succinct sentence that wastes no words. It is front-loaded with the action and provides the essential object and target context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a destructive, mutation-heavy purpose, the description is too sparse. It lacks any explanation of the operation's outcome, prerequisites, the purpose of 'options', or expected return values. With no output schema, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (only 'integrations' has a description). The description mentions 'finding' and 'integrations' but adds no details about the 'finding_id' format, the 'options' object, or how integration IDs are selected. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Auto-remediate') applied to a specific resource ('a finding') with a destination ('selected integration(s)'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'bulk_apply' by indicating a single finding vs. bulk operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_remediation_bulk_apply or list_integrations. The phrase 'selected integration(s)' implies prior selection but no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping constraint that the assessment is 'specific' (not all assessments), which is useful context. However, it does not provide additional behavioral details such as pagination, authorization requirements, or return format, so it adds only marginal value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential action and resource clearly, which is ideal for a tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is adequate and covers the core purpose. It could benefit from noting what type of data is returned or that this is specifically for findings, but the name and description already imply this. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to know what the tool does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (assessment_id) with zero descriptive coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'specific Advanced Scenarios assessment' clarifies that the ID refers to an Advanced Scenarios assessment, but it does not explain the format, origin, or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, making this minimally adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('findings from a specific Advanced Scenarios assessment'), which is more specific than a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like cymulate_findings_search or cymulate_advanced_get_assessment_result, which may also return finding-like data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies that it works with a specific assessment ID, but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for other finding types. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey openWorldHint=true and readOnly=false. The description adds the 'external recon' detail, which aligns with open world behavior, but does not disclose important launch semantics like asynchronous execution, duration, cost, or how results are retrieved afterward.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a launch tool with no output schema, the description fails to mention whether the call returns a scan ID, whether it is asynchronous, or if there are any prerequisites (e.g., existing ASM configuration). The generic 'options' parameter remains unexplained, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'options' property has a description), so baseline 3 applies. However, the description 'Additional launch parameters' is generic and the tool description adds no further meaning about what options are accepted, leaving the parameter semantics vague despite nominal schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Trigger') and names the exact resource ('Attack Surface Management assessment') with clarifying context ('external recon'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get/list tools and other launch tools by specifying the ASM scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_advanced_launch_assessment or cymulate_bas_launch. It does not mention prerequisites, scheduling, or contexts where a different launch tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention return format, pagination, whether an empty list is possible, or any side effects. The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description itself provides no additional disclosure, making it minimal for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence containing one verb and one object, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the action, making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and is a simple read operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not specify the return value structure (e.g., list of configuration objects), which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Overall, it lacks some contextual detail but is not misleading.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so schema-level coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter documentation because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('launched-assessment configurations'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cymulate_ev_launched_get (which gets a single assessment) and cymulate_ev_scheduled_get_configurations (which targets scheduled configurations). However, it does not elaborate on what 'configurations' includes, so it is not perfectly unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit usage context, such as when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and the word 'launched' imply it is for retrieving configurations of launched assessments, but there is no statement of exclusions or comparison with other config-related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is already established. The description adds no behavioral context such as return format, pagination, or how filters relate to other operations. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It fully encapsulates the tool's purpose in an efficient manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and read-only, but the description does not explain what the filters are used for or how they relate to resource listing endpoints. With no output schema, the description carries the burden of conveying the return value's purpose, which it only minimally does. However, given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. The description adds no unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves filters for EV resources, using the specific verb 'Get' and identifying the resource scope. It distinguishes from other get_filters tools by mentioning 'EV resources', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling filter tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative filter tools (e.g., cymulate_ev_threats_get_filters, cymulate_ea_tasks_get_filters). The description does not mention any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive behavior is known. However, the description adds no extra context such as permanence, permissions, or effects on dependent resources, providing only minimal confirmation of the action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the tool's purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient because annotations cover the destructive nature. However, it omits any mention of return values, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving some gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'template_id', and the description does not explain its format, meaning, or where to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description must compensate for missing schema descriptions and fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('EV template'), matching the title and distinguishing it from sibling tools like get, update, or list. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or how it relates to other template operations. No alternatives, exclusions, or context for choosing between delete variants are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond restating the operation, such as what the response contains or any prerequisites. It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence 'Get a specific EV template.' conveys the core purpose with zero waste. It is minimal but complete for the level of detail it attempts to provide.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only get-by-ID tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is not clarifying that this targets regular EV templates as opposed to the smart templates covered by a sibling tool, but overall complexity is low and annotations cover safety.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the single parameter template_id is self-explanatory given the tool name and title. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter's format or how to obtain a valid ID, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific EV template' clearly states a specific verb+resource+scope, matching the title 'Get EV template by ID'. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling cymulate_ev_smart_templates_get, which targets a different but similarly named resource, so it loses a point for not disambiguating.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_ev_templates_list (for listing) or cymulate_ev_smart_templates_get (for smart templates). The context is only implied by the word 'specific', with no explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds the behavioral qualifier 'available,' indicating that only assessments with IOCs are returned, which is useful but minimal. No additional context about pagination or response format is provided, but for a simple read-only list, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence (9 words) that front-loads the action and resource. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description should ideally clarify the return shape more precisely. 'Get assessments that have IOCs' implies a list of assessments, but it does not explicitly state that, nor does it explain the relationship to 'Immediate Threats' from the title. For a simple list tool with no params and strong safety annotations, it is minimally adequate but leaves some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the schema fully covers parameters (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate; there is nothing missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get assessments that have IOCs (indicators of compromise) available,' which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (assessments with IOCs). The definition of the acronym adds clarity. However, it could more explicitly align with the title 'List Immediate Threats with IOCs' to distinguish from sibling get tools like get_detection or get_latest_ids, though the 'with IOCs' qualifier does differentiate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus the many sibling immediate_threats tools (e.g., get_latest_ids, get_detection), nor any exclusions or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that—no mention of output format, errors, or permissions, so it fails to add value beyond the structured hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant words or information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, read-only tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it doesn't clarify what 'details' means or what fields are returned. The annotations fill some gaps, but the description remains vague about the actual data content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides a string exposure_id with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description's 'specific exposure' suggests the parameter is the identifier, but gives no format, example, or guidance on where to obtain the ID. Minimal compensation for low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'exposure', with the qualifier 'specific' indicating single-item retrieval. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cymulate_ea_exposures_export and other get-tools, though not explicitly naming alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'specific' implies using this when you have an exposure_id, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over export/list tools or any exclusions. The usage is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate these. It adds context about the scheduled-assessment scope, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like behavior on missing task_id or whether results are cached. For a read-only tool with strong annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition of the title. It is optimally structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only getter with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete. It clearly identifies the resource and context. However, it does not clarify what the returned pre-requirement checks contain or any potential edge cases, but the absence of an output schema means this is not strictly required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with one required parameter (task_id). The description implies task_id relates to a scheduled-assessment task but does not explicitly connect the parameter to the description. Since there is no schema description for the parameter, the description should compensate more by clearly stating that task_id identifies the scheduled-assessment task.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pre-requirement checks') with additional scope ('for a scheduled-assessment task'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_ev_assess_prereqs_relaunch and other getters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as mentioning that it should be used before launching a scheduled assessment or referencing cymulate_ev_assess_prereqs_relaunch. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'available' and 'multi-APT') but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other runtime behavior. This matches the baseline where annotations carry the risk disclosure burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that leads with the verb 'List' and immediately names the resource. It contains no filler or repetition, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the essential action and target resource. However, it does not mention what fields the listing includes or any limitation on scope, so slightly more detail could aid the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explicate. The description appropriately focuses on the operation rather than inputs, aligning with the baseline for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Full Kill-Chain Campaign templates'), with the parenthetical '(multi-APT)' adding domain context. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by naming a specific template category, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like cymulate_advanced_list_templates or cymulate_bas_list_templates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other template-list siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without a clear decision basis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds minor context like 'technical (detailed)' and 'specific assessment,' but does not disclose behaviors such as data format, permissions, or pagination. Given the annotations lower the bar, a score of 3 is appropriate—it adds some value but not rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, the lack of parameter explanation (especially 'module') is a clear gap, and there is no mention of what the report contains or how to interpret the response. The usage note adds value, but overall it falls short of being fully self-sufficient for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It implies 'assessment_id' through 'by ID' and 'specific assessment,' but completely fails to clarify the 'module' parameter, which has 10 enum values. The description provides no guidance on what module means or how it relates to the assessment ID, leaving the agent to guess. This is a significant gap that the description should have filled.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the function: 'Get technical (detailed) report for a specific assessment.' The verb 'get' and resource 'technical report' are specific, and the phrase 'specific assessment' distinguishes it from siblings like cymulate_bas_get_executive_report and cymulate_bas_get_latest_technical. Even though the title already says 'by ID', the description reinforces the scope without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context: 'Use for SIEM/detection engineering.' This tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case implicitly differentiates it from executive report or latest results. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds no further behavioral context such as response format, pagination, or module-specific variance, but it also doesn't contradict annotations. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has only two parameters and good annotations, so the bar for completeness is moderate. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what 'details' includes or note that template_id likely comes from a list operation. It is adequate for a simple get-by-ID but lacks richer context that would help an agent anticipate the response or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters in any meaningful way. It mentions 'selected BAS module' but does not elaborate on what module values mean or how template_id should be obtained (e.g., from list_templates). The enum provides some structure, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get details for a specific template of the selected BAS module' with a specific verb (get), resource (template), and scope (BAS module). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cymulate_bas_list_templates because it explicitly targets a specific template by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you have a module and template_id) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It does not say 'to list templates use list_templates' or clarify how this relates to other get_template variants, so guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the key safety traits. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, pagination, or side effects). It aligns with annotations but doesn't enrich them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It gets straight to the point and takes minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke it. It could optionally mention what a 'rule' is or the return format, but the low complexity makes this less critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter (environment_id) with 0% description coverage. The description's 'for a specific environment' hints at the meaning but doesn't explicitly name or elaborate on environment_id. It provides minimal added value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('List rules') on a specific resource ('for a specific environment'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like cymulate_env_list or cymulate_env_get by naming 'rules' as the target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The reader must infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds the 'all' scope but does not explain pagination, filtering, or return format, which are minor gaps for a simple list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple list operation with one optional query parameter, but the undocumented parameter is a notable gap. Given the rich sibling context and the lack of output schema, the description could have briefly mentioned filtering behavior or response contents to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one optional 'query' object with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose of this parameter, leaving the agent unsure how to use it for filtering. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it remains silent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all EV smart templates' uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('EV smart templates'), and explicitly says 'all', indicating the full collection. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'cymulate_ev_templates_list' by specifying 'smart templates'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving smart templates but does not explicitly state when to choose this over other template/list tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, though the name and description make the scope reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already indicate a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations convey, such as what data is returned or any operational caveats. It merely restates the tool's function without enriching the agent's understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter status endpoint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, read-only), the description is largely complete. However, it does not specify what 'status' or 'integrations' encompasses or what the response might look like, which could leave minor ambiguity. Still, for a zero-parameter status checker, this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes no parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter usage. With zero parameters, this is a baseline score of 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('status of platform integrations'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'list_integrations' or 'health'. It unambiguously describes what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusion cases, leaving the agent without direction on when this tool is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds the bulk scope but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or asynchronous behavior. It does not contradict annotations and adds some context, but not rich behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Efficient and clear in its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a bulk destructive operation with no output schema and a vague payload schema, the one-sentence description leaves critical gaps: what constitutes a finding, what the payload should contain, whether the operation is synchronous, and what the response looks like. The description is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the sole parameter with a description, but that description ('Bulk remediation payload (matches OpenAPI schema)') is vague and does not explain the payload structure. The tool description also offers no additional parameter meaning. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'auto-remediate' and clearly identifies the resource ('multiple findings') and the scope ('in a single call'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool cymulate_remediation_apply by indicating this is the bulk variant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a batch use case ('multiple findings in a single call') but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the single-finding alternative, nor mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It provides only implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, response format, data volume) beyond the fact that it returns all findings for an assessment. It is consistent with annotations but not additive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the core functionality. However, it does not mention what a 'finding' contains, whether results are paginated, or how they relate to other ASM outputs. It is complete enough for basic usage but lacks detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It refers to 'a specific ASM assessment,' giving some meaning to assessment_id, but it does not explain the ID format, source, or prerequisite steps. For a single parameter, this is adequate but not rich.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Get all findings') and resource ('specific ASM assessment'), using a specific verb and noun. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cymulate_asm_get_latest_findings and cymulate_asm_get_technical by emphasizing the assessment ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one has an assessment ID and wants its findings, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_latest_findings or get_technical. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds domain context ('a specific finding') but does not describe return format, pagination, or whether integrations have status information. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is direct, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and contains no filler. It conveys the key scope ('integrations available to auto-remediate a specific finding') without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool, the description adequately conveys basic purpose, but with no output schema and no return-value hint, an agent does not know what form the list of integrations takes. Additional context about the response structure or typical usage (e.g., choosing an integration to apply) would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, finding_id, with only type string and minLength, and no description. The tool description does not explain the parameter's format or expected values. However, the parameter name and the phrase 'specific finding' make its purpose reasonably inferable, but the description does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (list) and resource (auto-remediation integrations for a specific finding). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cymulate_remediation_apply and bulk_apply because those apply remediation while this lists available integrations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a preparation step for auto-remediation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. It lacks references to sibling tools or conditions under which this listing would be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that it returns all findings only for the latest assessment, but does not disclose other traits such as pagination, error behavior, or what happens when no assessment exists. This is acceptable given the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, eight words, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words; every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations, the description is sufficient to understand its purpose and scope. The absence of an output schema leaves the return format undocumented, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers all parameter information. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get all findings for the latest ASM assessment' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling cymulate_asm_get_findings_by_id by specifying 'all' findings for the latest assessment rather than by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cymulate_findings_search or cymulate_asm_get_findings_by_id. The name implies 'latest' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'latest' assessment, implying dependence on prior scans, but does not disclose potential errors, return size, or format. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with the key action and object, front-loaded and free of any unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple no-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description is adequate. It conveys the return type and scope, but could be improved by noting distinctions from other ASM reporting tools or the need for an existing assessment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to clarify parameters; 'latest' is a conceptual scope, not an input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'detailed technical output', and the scope 'latest ASM assessment'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling ASM tools by specifying it returns the technical report rather than findings or launch actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_asm_get_latest_findings or cymulate_bas_get_technical_report. It only implies use after an assessment, but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds context about the kind of information returned (running/idle/last-run info), which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent an idea of what to expect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get current status') and includes parenthetical detail on the content. No unnecessary words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single param, no output schema), the description provides a basic idea of the return value ('running/idle/last-run info') but lacks any explanation of the required 'module' parameter or response structure. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the required 'module' parameter, and the description does not elaborate on it. While the enum values are listed, the description fails to explain what 'module' means or how it affects the result, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and enum names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('BAS module status'), and specifies the type of status ('running/idle/last-run info'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cymulate_bas_get_latest_results, which retrieves results rather than status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: if you need the current status of the BAS module, you call this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, such as distinguishing from launching or stopping an assessment or retrieving results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as effects on assessment data/partial results, but it also does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, scannable sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate for understanding the core action. However, it lacks any detail on consequences of stopping (e.g., whether results are preserved, if it is reversible), which would be valuable since the annotations only flag destructiveness without explaining what that means here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage of parameter descriptions is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It only mentions 'selected module' without explaining the enum values, semantics, or selection guidance, leaving the agent to infer meaning from raw enum names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Stop' and resource 'BAS assessment' with a scope 'on the selected module', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like launch/status. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates the tool is for stopping an assessment that is currently running, providing strong contextual signal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'running' condition is sufficient for most cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds context about returning 'all' exposures, but it does not explain the 'task rule filter' mechanism or disclose any pagination/performance characteristics, which would be valuable given the annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and scope without redundancy. Every word adds meaning, and the dashcleverly separates the traversal mechanism from the outcome.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify the returned exposure structure and any constraints. It mentions 'all exposures' but leaves the 'task rule filter' ambiguous and fails to mention pagination or result formatting, making it adequate but not fully complete for a tool with two parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: only task_id is documented. The description does not explain the 'query' parameter, which is undocumented in the schema and described only vaguely as 'task rule filter.' It provides no additional parameter semantics to compensate for the gap, so agents may be unsure how to construct the query object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific language: 'returns all exposures linked to a remediation task,' clearly identifying the resource (exposures) and the context (remediation task). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_ea_exposures_get (which likely fetches a single exposure) and cymulate_ea_tasks_get (which fetches task details).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating it lists exposures associated with a task, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or define when not to use it, which would move it to a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey. Since the tool is a simple getter with no side effects, this is acceptable, though it doesn't go beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient for understanding its purpose. It could mention that these filters are meant for use in other EV threats calls, but that's inferable from the tool name.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets available filter options for the EV threats catalog. It specifies the resource (EV threats) and the object (filter options), distinguishing it from sibling get_filters tools for other resources like resources or tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention typical use cases like populating filter UI or prerequisites, nor does it contrast with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context—no return format, ordering, or scope limits are disclosed. Since annotations cover the core traits, a neutral score is warranted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and no extraneous words. It is highly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless, read-only list tool with annotations, the description communicates the essential purpose. However, it omits details about what the response contains (e.g., scheduled run IDs, timestamps), which would be useful absent an output schema. Still, the low complexity makes it largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties, so schema description coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description offers no parameter info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'scheduled auto-runs for EV threats', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as cymulate_ev_threats_create_auto_run (which creates) and cymulate_ev_threats_list (which lists threats), by specifically scoping to scheduled auto-runs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_ev_threats_list or cymulate_ev_scheduled_list. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific meaning of detection results as SIEM matches and the single-assessment scope, which is useful context but does not describe potential errors or response structure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It directly states the action and resource, making it highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects). The description tells the agent what results are returned and the scope. It could be more complete by referencing where to get the assessment_id or when results are available, but overall it is adequate for this low-complexity read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With one parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. The phrase 'for a specific Immediate Threats assessment' aligns with 'assessment_id' and clarifies its purpose, but it does not explain the expected format or how to discover the ID (e.g., via get_latest_ids). Minimal but acceptable for a simple ID string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a concrete action ('Get'), a clear resource ('detection results'), and contextual scope ('for a specific Immediate Threats assessment'). It also adds the clarifying detail that results are SIEM matches. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_ioc_list' or 'get_latest_ids'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is implied: you use this tool when you have an assessment_id and need detection results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the assessment needing to be run first or where to obtain the assessment_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds 'recent runs' to clarify scope. However, it does not disclose potential nuances such as whether 'latest' means a single most recent run or all recent runs, or if IDs are unique across runs. The description does not contradict annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action 'Get list of IDs' and adds essential context with '(recent runs)'. No redundancy with the title or schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description conveys the core function and output type (a list of IDs). Minor ambiguity around 'latest' (single vs. multiple runs) exists, but the simplicity of the operation makes the description largely adequate. It could benefit from mentioning downstream usage, but that is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description has no responsibility to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds no parameter-specific value, but the absence of parameters makes this acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the action ('Get list of IDs') and the resource ('latest Immediate Threats assessments'), with the parenthetical '(recent runs)' adding temporal context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_immediate_threats_get_ioc_list or cymulate_immediate_threats_get_detection, which target different data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it returns only IDs and not full assessment details, nor how it relates to other Immediate Threats endpoints. With many sibling tools, the lack of usage context is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare the operation read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'most recent' qualifier, indicating it returns a snapshot rather than historical data, but does not explain how recent is defined or whether any aggregation logic applies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that is immediately understandable. It includes the core verb, resource, and qualifier without filler or repetition of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could benefit from stating the output shape or grouping details, but the essential behavior is clear and no output schema exists to compensate for missing information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'most recent scores per security control type'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools focused on activity logs, dashboards, or other data, and the phrase 'per security control type' adds helpful scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative score-related endpoints. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or contrasts with similar reporting tools, leaving the agent without contextual clues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'latest module assessment' scoping but does not disclose return format, potential empty results, or any other behavioral nuance, which is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a simple zero-parameter read-only getter, the description is largely sufficient. However, without an output schema, a brief note on what the trace log contains or its format would enhance completeness, though it is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully comprehensive (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, indicating no gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource 'trace log from the latest module assessment', which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like activity logs. It precisely states what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cymulate_platform_activity_logs or other log-related tools. There is no mention of contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that testPoints is required and replaces the full assignment, which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether other fields are patched or also fully replaced, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists the relevant fields, and highlights the critical testPoints behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has nested objects and no output schema, so the description should clarify update semantics (partial vs full) and expected response. It mentions the testPoints full-assignment but leaves similar behavior for rules/owners ambiguous, and does not address error conditions or permissions. Annotations cover safety, but behavioral gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%: the payload object has a description, but environment_id does not. The tool description lists the updatable fields and reiterates the testPoints requirement, but it adds little beyond the existing schema description and does not explain the semantics of each field or the ID format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update an existing Cymulate environment' and enumerates the specific modifiable fields (name, tier, owners, testPoints, rules). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_env_create (creation) and cymulate_env_get (retrieval).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies 'existing' environment, implying this tool is for modification rather than creation or deletion, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool. Clear context is provided, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, confirming this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds no extra context beyond what annotations provide, such as output format or pagination behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence of six words. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for a simple list operation. However, it does not explain what 'connected' means or return value shape, which would have added completeness, but such details are not critical for a tool of this simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). As per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist, and it sufficiently conveys the tool's action.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource combination ('List all connected Cymulate agents') that clearly states the tool's function. The word 'connected' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'cymulate_agents_list_all', which lists all agents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool is for retrieving connected agents, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'cymulate_agents_list_all'. There is no clear context or exclusion criteria provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds the context that the CVE data comes from Exposure Analytics, but doesn't disclose return format, error behavior, or other operational details. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the purpose immediately. There is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description is complete enough to guide invocation. It lacks detail on what 'details' include, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter cve_id clearly described as a CVE identifier with an example. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get details'), the target resource ('a specific CVE'), and the source domain ('from Exposure Analytics'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_ea_cves_list and cymulate_ea_cves_export, which imply list and export operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need details for one specific CVE, given by its ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear for a simple lookup tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific fields returned, which is useful but not behavioral transparency. No rate limits, pagination, or auth details are mentioned, but for a read-only tool with annotations, this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Returns'), followed by a specific resource and a parenthetical list of example fields. It contains no filler or redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states what is returned and the scope, but could be slightly more explicit about the return format or what 'drawer-level' means. Still, it is comprehensive enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% because task_id is described as 'Remediation task ID (ObjectId)'. The description does not add any extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'drawer-level task detail for a single remediation task', listing concrete fields (status history, severity, CVEs, mitigation type). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cymulate_ea_tasks_list, cymulate_ea_tasks_get_exposures, and cymulate_ea_tasks_get_mitigations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a single remediation task' provides clear context for when this tool should be used, implying it is for individual task detail rather than list or bulk operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only safety is covered. The description adds the scope 'launched EV assessments' but no additional behavioral details such as return format or rate limits, which is acceptable given annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence that directly states the purpose; no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only filter retrieval tool with annotations, the description is sufficient. It could optionally mention output format but this is not essential given the tool's simplicity and the presence of safety annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed, and there are no parameter semantics to clarify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'filters' scoped to 'launched EV assessments', clearly distinguishing from sibling get_filters tools for threats, resources, tasks, and findings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance, but the scope 'launched EV assessments' implies its use case for retrieval of filter options, distinct from sibling filter tools. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, and the description aligns with those safe, read-only semantics. However, it adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, sorting, or what each group entry contains, so value beyond annotations is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function. A slight addition about the return format (e.g., group identifiers) could enhance completeness, but it is not essential for a simple list-all operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description accurately conveys that no inputs are needed, though it adds no parameter-level detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'all EV template groups'. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cymulate_ev_template_groups_get, which targets a specific group, by emphasizing the 'all' scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when enumeration of all template groups is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like cymulate_ev_template_groups_get. No exclusions or alternate-tool references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'single-APT' scoping detail, which is useful, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral traits. This is a simple list operation, so the added value is modest but not absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what is listed (Full Kill-Chain Scenarios templates) and the scope (single-APT). Minor gaps include lack of return format, but these are not critical for such a basic operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed because the schema is empty. The description adds no unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'available Full Kill-Chain Scenarios templates,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like cymulate_fkc_campaign_list_templates and cymulate_fkc_scenarios_get_template. The parenthetical '(single-APT)' adds clarifying scope without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage—when you need to list available single-APT full kill-chain scenario templates—but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as campaign templates or other template list tools. For a zero-parameter listing operation, this is acceptable but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the key requirement that the body must follow the Cymulate custom-threat schema, which is useful. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, validation behavior, or consequences of invalid payloads. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the schema constraint but not much else.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately provide a critical constraint on the payload. No unnecessary words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations already cover the read-only/destructive hints, the description is reasonably complete. It states the action and the primary constraint (schema conformance). It could be more complete by explaining what an Immediate Threat is or where to find the schema, but these are external references.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes the only parameter 'payload' as 'Custom threat payload', which is generic. The description adds meaningful context by stating that the body should follow the Cymulate custom-threat schema, telling the agent how to construct the payload. This goes beyond the schema's own documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Upload a custom Immediate Threat with your own IOCs.' It uses a specific verb ('upload') and resource ('custom Immediate Threat'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like catalog, get_ioc_list, get_detection, and get_latest_ids.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for uploading custom threats with user-provided IOCs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. There is no mention of alternative tools for similar purposes, so the guidance remains implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, conveying a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a 'summary', implying aggregated data, but does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as time windows, pagination, or data granularity. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the resource, scope, and nature ('summary'). Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool, the description is adequate: it names the resource and clarifies the content ('recent assessment activity across modules'). However, without an output schema, a bit more detail about the shape of the summary (e.g., metrics included) would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to add parameter-specific details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource: 'Activity Center summary', with a specific scope: 'recent assessment activity across modules'. The verb 'Get' is specific, and the mention of 'summary' distinguishes it from other info tools like cymulate_info_users_list or cymulate_platform_activity_logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for viewing a high-level overview of recent assessment activity, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as cymulate_platform_activity_logs or cymulate_info_integrations_status. No exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds the scope of 337 endpoints and the fallback nature, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response handling. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but more detail could be provided for a generic catch-all tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The key qualifier 'Fallback tool' is front-loaded, and the use case is stated directly in the second sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations only cover readOnly and openWorld. The description gives purpose and usage, but does not mention what happens on success or failure, how responses are returned, or any error behavior. For a generic API call that could hit many endpoints, this is a notable gap, though the simplicity of the tool partially mitigates it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides for method, path, body, and query. It is relevant to note that path is described in the schema, and the description adds no new information about parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function as a fallback for any of the 337 Cymulate REST endpoints not covered by first-class tools. This uses a specific verb ('reach') plus resource ('Cymulate REST endpoints'), and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as the generic alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a first-class tool does not exist for the endpoint you need.' It also implies a when-not-to-use by specifying it is for endpoints not covered by first-class tools, making alternatives clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds the 'all available' scope and clarifies that actions are building blocks, but it does not disclose output format, pagination, or any other behavioral details. For a simple no-param list, this is acceptable but not enriched.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, no wasted words. It perfectly balances brevity with clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is extremely simple: no parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations. The description fully captures the purpose and scoping ('all available'), and the sibling context shows no competing 'list actions' tool. Complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds meaning by defining what 'actions' are (building blocks), which helps the agent understand the returned items. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately compensates by explaining the domain concept.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all available EV scenario actions') and defines the term as 'building blocks for scenarios'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that manage scenarios themselves (e.g., cymulate_ev_scenarios_create/update/delete) by focusing on the 'actions' sub-resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: to enumerate available scenario actions, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., cymulate_ev_templates_list) or any prerequisites or context for when this list is needed. The description is adequate but not instructive about alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds only the scope ('Findings page') and does not contradict annotations, but it lacks additional behavioral context like return format or dependency on the current filter state, which is left to the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, clear read-only annotations), the description fully captures the tool's purpose. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what this tool does, even without detailing return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%; the only parameter 'filters' is described in the schema as 'Current filter state (used to compute available values)'. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already provides full semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('available filter options') with clear scope ('for the Findings page'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling filter tools targeting other pages (e.g., threats, resources, tasks).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context (when you need filter options for the Findings page) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. Sibling names imply alternatives for other pages, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no further behavioral detail such as pagination, response structure, or side effects, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List Purple Team / Advanced Scenarios templates available.' No unnecessary words, perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description is adequate. It does not mention the returned data format, but the tool's simplicity and annotations reduce the need for more detail. A slight gap is the absence of any note about the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'List Purple Team / Advanced Scenarios templates available', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_bas_list_templates or cymulate_fkc_scenarios_list_templates by naming the module.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for listing Advanced/Purple Team templates, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is sufficient for an agent to infer its usage in the Advanced module.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations, the description adds the HTTP method and path (PUT /v1/agents/change-environment), the prerequisite that the target environment must already exist, and permission requirements on both source and target envs. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but for a simple move operation, this is sufficient. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four concise sentences, each providing essential information: the action, the endpoint, prerequisites, and permission details. No fluff or redundancy—every sentence earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a state-changing move operation with two parameters and no output schema), the description covers the key prerequisites (target environment existence, permissions) and points to relevant sibling tools for obtaining IDs. It does not mention the return value on success or failure modes, but these are not critical for correct invocation. Overall, it provides sufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including how to obtain each ID (e.g., 'obtain from cymulate_agents_list_connected or agents_list_all'). The description's mention of 'query params id (agent ID) and envId (target environment ID)' merely restates the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Move a Cymulate agent to a target environment,' specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the specific PUT endpoint and focusing solely on environment changes, which no other sibling tool addresses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit prerequisites: 'Requires the target environment to already exist' and directs users to cymulate_env_list for discovering env IDs. It also notes permission requirements on both source and target, giving clear context for when this tool should be used. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, but the guidance is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds the 'from history' qualifier, useful context but not extensive. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but this is a simple param-less list, so no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a param-less read-only list tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the output (list of ASM assessment IDs) and the source (history). It lacks details like whether IDs are sorted or paginated, but the low complexity and strong annotations make the description adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed given the empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'ASM assessment IDs', and the source 'history', which precisely defines the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cymulate_asm_get_latest_findings and cymulate_bas_list_history_ids by specifying ASM and history IDs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you need history IDs for ASM assessments. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as using cymulate_asm_get_latest_findings for the latest assessment IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond the title's 'historical assessment IDs' and does not mention return format, pagination, or ordering, but the safety profile is covered by annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. Every clause earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, so the description adequately covers the scope and expected result type ('historical assessment IDs'). It omits potential pagination or ordering details, but given the low complexity and strong annotations, the description is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'module' is fully enumerated in the schema, and the description's 'selected BAS module' ties the parameter to its purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does little to clarify the meaning of specific enum values or add usage details beyond what the schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List historical assessment IDs for the selected BAS module', which is a specific verb+resource combination, and the title reinforces it. It also explicitly distinguishes this from the module-specific /ids endpoint by indicating preference, so it is not confused with sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides direct selection guidance: 'Prefer this over the module-specific /ids endpoint.' This explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative, which fulfills the when-to-use requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about the derivation of mitigations (from the task rule filter) and the types of suggestions returned, going beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and output types without any filler or redundancy. It is highly efficient and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only, idempotent list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what is returned and the source. However, it does not define the query parameter's semantics or output structure, which would be helpful but is not critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, with task_id described but the query object undocumented. The description's phrase 'derived from the task rule filter' hints at the query parameter's role but doesn't explicitly explain how to use the query object or its structure, leaving some ambiguity. It adds marginal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns actionable mitigations for a specific task, with specific types (Sigma/KQL/XQL/policy suggestions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_ea_tasks_get_exposures and cymulate_ea_tasks_get, which serve different data retrieval purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by indicating this tool is for retrieving mitigations based on a task's rule filter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions, though the purpose is self-evident given the tool name and title.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying that this lists templates (not raw IOCs) and that it represents the IOC-of-the-day feed, which helps set expectations. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficiently front-loaded with the action 'List' and the resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does and the nature of the content. It could optionally mention what fields are returned, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'Immediate Threats templates', and the parenthetical '(the IOC-of-the-day feed)' adds useful context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_immediate_threats_get_ioc_list and other list tools, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for browsing available templates, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as cymulate_immediate_threats_get_ioc_list or cymulate_ev_threats_list. The IOC-of-the-day feed hint provides some context but no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds that the tool returns hashes and is for integrity verification, which is helpful but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as return format, performance, or prerequisites. Given the simplicity and annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get hashes of installed agents') and appends a useful note. No unnecessary words or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned (hashes), for what agents (installed), and why it might be used (integrity verification). There are no gaps in context given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain any input semantics, and the schema correctly reflects an empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get hashes of installed agents'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling agent tools like list_connected and list_all, which list agents rather than their hashes. The additional purpose 'useful for integrity verification' reinforces the intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear usage context by stating 'useful for integrity verification', implying when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple read-only getter, this level of guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope fact that both connected and disconnected agents are returned, which is beyond the annotations but minimal. No additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, response format) is provided, but given annotations, the description is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that states the action and scope without redundant words. The parenthetical adds essential distinguishing information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is trivial (no parameters, no output schema). The description fully conveys what the tool does: lists all agents, including connected and disconnected ones. There is no missing context for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema provides full coverage. The description correctly omits parameter details. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and no additional semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('Cymulate agents') with an explicit scope ('all (connected + disconnected)'). This directly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'cymulate_agents_list_connected', which lists only connected agents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical '(connected + disconnected)' provides clear context that this tool returns all agents, implying it should be used when both types are needed. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool as an alternative, but the distinction is evident from the sibling name 'cymulate_agents_list_connected'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it describes the output structure (grouped by type with id/name/status) and explains the effect of the optional environment_id parameter ('include test points already assigned to that environment'). This goes beyond the annotations to disclose what the response contains and how the parameter modifies the result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the main result, then provide usage guidance and parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details. It is well-structured for quick comprehension by an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple list tool with no required parameters and no output schema. The description adequately covers the return shape (grouping and fields) and the optional parameter behavior. It also situates the tool in a broader workflow ('when assigning test points in create or update environment requests'), making it sufficiently complete for the agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, with the description already stating 'Optional — pass to include test points already assigned to that env.' The tool description reinforces this but does not add additional semantic value beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description confirms the parameter's role but does not introduce new meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Returns test points grouped by type (agents, mailboxes, sites) with id/name/status.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_env_list (which lists environments) and cymulate_env_get (which retrieves a single environment). The grouping and fields are explicitly named, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use these values when assigning test points in create or update environment requests.' This tells the agent exactly when this tool is relevant. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but given the sibling set and the tool's unique purpose, clear context is provided without needing explicit when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to state safety. The description adds 'current' to imply it returns the existing snapshot, but otherwise provides no additional behavioral details such as output structure or error conditions. It is consistent but not enriching beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word earns its place, clearly conveying the tool's purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is sufficient. It is a simple read-only getter, and the description fully covers what the tool does. No additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description correctly implies no inputs are required, and with no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieve the current SSO configuration for the platform' clearly states a specific action (retrieve) on a specific resource (SSO configuration) for the platform context. It matches the tool name and title, and there are no sibling tools that overlap with this SSO-specific function, so it is fully distinguishable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when the current SSO configuration is needed. There are no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions, but the context is unambiguous since no sibling tool deals with SSO. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting it returns rate-limit info, which is beyond what the annotations convey. It also implies auth verification, which is valuable for an AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no wasted words. The return-value note earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough detail: it names the action and the key return element (rate-limit info). It could be more exhaustive about the full response shape, but for a health check this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema leaves nothing unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Ping' with the resource 'Cymulate API' and clearly states the outcome (verify auth and connectivity). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are focused on data operations rather than health checking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies use for verifying authentication and connectivity, providing a clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed given the tool's unique health-check role among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description exceeds the annotations by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it makes no API calls, enriches via knowledge-rag queries, produces specific outputs (Mermaid diagram, MITRE mapping, detection points), and has hard blocks against modifying defaults or auto-submitting. This is rich, non-obvious context beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the most critical distinction ('LOCAL composition tool. Does NOT call the Cymulate API'). Every sentence provides valuable behavioral or output context, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers outputs (Mermaid diagram, MITRE mapping, detection points) and key constraints. It could clarify how the composed result is returned or delivered to the operator, but the provided context is sufficient for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (86%), so parameters are largely self-explanatory. The description adds no direct parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does contextualize the overall composition workflow, keeping it at the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a local composition tool for building full-chain adversary emulation campaigns, with a specific verb 'composes' and distinct resource types (FKC Campaign or Advanced Assessment). It differentiates from sibling API-calling tools by explicitly stating it does NOT call the Cymulate API.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear contextual guidance: it is a local composition tool, never auto-submits, and presents results for operator review first. It implies exclusion of API-triggering workflows but does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds useful context about returning both request and response wire data, which is beyond the annotations. It does not disclose minor details like behavior when no request has been made, but this is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage trigger.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema debugging tool, the description fully covers what it does (returns last request/response) and when to use it (after a failure). The low complexity means no further detail is required for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific details since there are none. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so no additional semantics are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('last HTTP request/response'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its debugging scope, as no other sibling tool provides wire-level inspection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when a call failed and you want to see the wire.' It provides clear context for use, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases. Given the tool's unique debugging purpose, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, non-mutating nature is known. The description adds that the response contains integrationSettingId and clientIntegrationId specifically, useful behavioral detail about the return payload without contradicting the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action and returns, the second provides a concrete usage directive. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list operation with read-only annotations, the description fully covers what is returned and why it matters. No output schema exists, so the return payload description is sufficient. The tool's scope (environment) is implied by the name and use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output and usage rather than inventing unnecessary param details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'Returns all available connectors with integrationSettingId + instances with clientIntegrationId', using a specific verb and resource. It also frames the purpose in terms of downstream use, distinguishing it from sibling tools by focusing on connector/instance listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the returned values: 'Use these values when creating or updating rules on an environment.' This gives clear context for application, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid using.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description reveals key behavioral traits: it does NOT call the API, it returns a directive for subsequent steps, and it includes a HARD BLOCK against modification. This adds significant context that annotations alone don't convey, with no contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact yet information-dense, front-loaded with the crucial 'LOCAL composition tool' and structured with numbered steps. It could be slightly shortened, but every sentence adds necessary context, making it well-organized and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a thorough overview: local nature, workflow steps, return type (structured directive), hard constraints, and destination endpoints. It gives the agent enough context to invoke the tool appropriately and understand follow-up actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 78% (close to high threshold). The description does not add parameter-specific explanations beyond the schema, but the schema itself has solid descriptions for all params. The description's step-by-step workflow gives general context but doesn't clarify individual parameters further. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool is a LOCAL composition tool that returns a structured directive, distinguishing it from API-calling siblings. It names the specific resource (Cymulate scenario/template for one MITRE technique) and provides a clear verb ('compose'), making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit when-to-use context: producing NEW scenarios/templates. It also provides hard exclusions: NEVER modify/delete Cymulate default templates, and explicitly names the API endpoints to use afterward. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools that modify or delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: no permission gate and the return structure (id, name, agents[], urls[]). It does not mention potential pagination or rate limits, but for a no-parameter read-only list the added detail is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, comparison, and return format. The description is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and all information is directly useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, behavioral nuances, and return format. It is a complete and self-sufficient description for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the empty schema is fully documented (100% coverage). The description reinforces this by saying 'List all environments', which implies no parameters are needed. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'List all environments via v1 endpoint', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes from the sibling v2 endpoint ('Simpler than msplatform/v2'), making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states 'Preferred for read-only discovery' and contrasts with the v2 'permission gate', giving clear guidance on when to choose this tool over the alternative. This is comparable to the high-scoring example that names an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cymulate-mcp-tools MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lyonzin/cymulate-mcp-tools/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lyonzin/cymulate-mcp-tools)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cymulate-mcp-tools MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lyonzin/cymulate-mcp-tools/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lyonzin/cymulate-mcp-tools)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lyonzin/cymulate-mcp-tools'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server