Ingest CWPP Runtime Evidence

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals that the tool mutates the tenant-scoped runtime-evidence store, fails closed on authentication, and never writes to a customer cloud target. These are meaningful behavioral traits not captured by the annotations themselves, adding operational and security 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every subsequent sentence adds essential context (mutation, tenant scoping, auth fail-closed, no cloud writes) without redundancy. The structure is clean and scannable, with no filler words.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers the main purpose, behavior, and security boundaries effectively. It accounts for the destructive nature and prerequisites (source provisioning) while the output schema handles return values. Minor gaps like explicit alternative guidance are not critical here, but a brief pointer to related runtime tools would make it fully complete.

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 already provides complete coverage of all three parameters (source_id, secret, signals_json) with clear descriptions, including the exact body shape. The description adds a small note about source provisioning via an environment variable, but this does not substantially enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema's heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Ingest CWPP runtime/EDR workload signals into the local evidence store." It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing "local evidence store" and "never writes to a customer cloud target," while the title reinforces the tool's unique focus on runtime evidence ingestion.

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 contextual details like source provisioning via AGENT_BOM_RUNTIME_EVIDENCE_SOURCES and fail-closed auth, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as runtime_correlate or ingest_external_scan. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are offered, leaving usage timing ambiguous.

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