run_self_assessment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states that it runs an assessment but omits critical details: whether it is synchronous or asynchronous, side effects, durability of results, permissions needed, rate limits, or any other operational context.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence with no filler words. All content is front-loaded with the key action. Every word 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?

Given the complexity of a 'full autonomous red team assessment', the description is too sparse. It lacks context about what happens during the assessment, what the output is, whether state is modified, and any post-conditions. The simple input schema does not compensate for these missing behavioral details.

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 covers the single parameter 'attackCount' with a description (Number of attacks to generate, default 50). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond this, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'full autonomous red team assessment' with specific actions 'attack generation and policy testing'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'schedule_red_team' or 'red_team_results', which could be inferred but not directly stated.

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 alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites. Sibling tools like 'schedule_red_team' exist but no comparison is made.

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