List Full Kill-Chain Campaign templates

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 minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'available' and 'multi-APT') but does not disclose return format, pagination, or other runtime behavior. This matches the baseline where annotations carry the risk disclosure burden.

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, focused sentence that leads with the verb 'List' and immediately names the resource. It contains no filler or repetition, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the essential action and target resource. However, it does not mention what fields the listing includes or any limitation on scope, so slightly more detail could aid the agent.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explicate. The description appropriately focuses on the operation rather than inputs, aligning with the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 ('List') and resource ('Full Kill-Chain Campaign templates'), with the parenthetical '(multi-APT)' adding domain context. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by naming a specific template category, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like cymulate_advanced_list_templates or cymulate_bas_list_templates.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other template-list siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without a clear decision basis.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.