Launch BAS assessment

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.