websense_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is informational rather than mutating by calling it a 'usage guide' and listing the tools it covers. It does not describe output format or exact interaction mechanics, but for a zero-parameter, read-only guidance tool the behavioral risk is low and the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 and front-loaded: 'START HERE.' immediately communicates priority, and the rest names scope and examples in one short sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema, no complex side effects), the description is complete. It tells the agent to start here, identifies the full scope as the 21 consolidated WebSense tools, and gives representative examples so the agent knows what kind of guidance to expect. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema already fully reflects that. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline score of 4.

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 identifies the tool as a starting-point usage guide: 'START HERE. Full usage guide for the 21 consolidated WebSense tools.' It specifies the resource (the 21 WebSense tools) and distinguishes it from the operational sibling tools like explore, read, and click. The purpose is unambiguous and not a mere restatement of the name.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'START HERE.' This is strong, clear usage guidance relative to the operational sibling tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but for a meta-guide tool the intended ordering is obvious.

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