List EV resources

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.