cme_spray

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions key behaviors (jitter, continue on success) but does not disclose potential risks like account lockouts, rate limiting, or authentication side effects. Adequate but could be improved.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Every word earns its place, no unnecessary information.

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 security-sensitive tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks details on return values, error handling, output format, and security implications, making it insufficient for safe usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema by explaining the overall purpose and providing context for jitter and continueOnSuccess, but does not add new parameter details.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'perform password spraying attacks' and specifies the resource 'multiple targets'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like cme_creds, cme_smb, etc. by focusing on spraying.

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?

Implies usage through the mention of jitter and continue on success options, but lacks explicit guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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