list_attacks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only covers the profileId parameter's role (lens vs container) but ignores other parameters like filters, pagination, and the fact that the tool returns a list. The description 'Get all attacks' suggests it might return all attacks, but the schema shows many filtering options, which are not mentioned. This omission leaves the agent unaware of filtering capabilities.

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, consisting of two short sentences with no fluff. The critical guidance about profileId is front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It only addresses profileId but does not explain other parameters like resourceType, resourceValue, dateStart, dateEnd, or the fact that the tool supports filtering, ordering, and searching. An agent would need to infer these from the schema alone, which is suboptimal.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that profileId selects a configuration profile as a lens, not a container, and provides guidance on how to obtain it. This goes beyond the schema's minimal 'Path parameter: profileId' description. However, other parameters like limit, order, search have adequate schema descriptions, so no extra detail is needed.

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 'Get all attacks', which is a specific verb and resource. The note about profileId meaning provides additional clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like export_attacks or list_attack_types, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a clear usage guideline: if the user hasn't specified a profile, call get_preferred_profile (or get_preferences) and use preferredProfileId — do not assume profile 1. This guides when to use alternative tools to obtain the profileId parameter. However, it doesn't mention when not to use this tool or list explicit alternatives.

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