List mitigations for a task

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.