List exposures for a task

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.