export_attacks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions CSV format and clarifies profileId meaning, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or potential large data handling. The guidance on profileId is helpful but incomplete for full transparency.

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 short and to the point, but the first sentence lacks proper punctuation before 'Note'. The guidance is front-loaded. It earns a 4 for efficiency despite minor formatting issues.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more details. It explains profileId and usage, but does not describe the return format (inline CSV vs file), or how filter parameters like resourceType affect the output. The note is helpful, but overall completeness is average.

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%, but generic. The description adds important context for profileId (lens vs container). However, other parameters like resourceType and resourceValue lack explanation beyond their enum/type. The extra context for profileId justifies a 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 states the tool exports attacks in CSV format, distinguishing it from likely JSON-returning sibling 'list_attacks'. However, it could be more explicit about the filtering parameters.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on how to obtain the profileId by calling 'get_preferred_profile' or 'get_preferences', and warns against assuming profile 1. This is a clear when-to-use instruction.

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