sophos_list_exclusions

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by stating 'list', confirming a safe read operation. It adds context about 'global scanning exclusions' and optional filtering. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits, which would be beneficial. Given annotations already cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences (20 words), no redundant information. Every word is meaningful, front-loading the core purpose and then specifying the optional filter. No filler or repetition.

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 list tool with annotations providing safety context, the description covers the main points: purpose and filtering. It does not mention that tenant_id is required (though schema shows it) or pagination parameters (page, page_size). Adding a note about pagination would make it more complete, but overall it is adequate given the schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by listing the exact enum values for the 'type' field in plain text: 'path, process, web, pua, amsi, behavioral, certificateSigner', which helps the agent quickly understand valid filter options without parsing the schema. This exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 'List global scanning exclusions for a tenant' with optional filtering by type. It uses a specific verb ('list') and explicitly identifies the resource ('global scanning exclusions'). This distinguishes it from other exclusion-related tools like sophos_create_exclusion, sophos_get_exclusion, and sophos_update_exclusion.

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 implies usage: when you need to view exclusions, optionally filtered by type. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., use get_exclusion for a single exclusion), but the context from sibling tools makes the distinction clear. Adding a statement like 'Use this for filtered listing; for individual exclusions use get_exclusion' would improve clarity.

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