Launch ASM assessment

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.