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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that this is a listing operation, implying read-only, and describes pagination parameters. However, it does not disclose any response format, result ordering, or potential side effects beyond what can be inferred from 'list'.

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 concise: a single-purpose sentence followed by a clean argument list. It is front-loaded with the action, and every line serves a purpose, covering all parameters without redundancy.

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?

While the parameter documentation is clear, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the returned alert objects contain. For a list tool, an agent needs to know the shape of the results to process them correctly, making the description incomplete in that respect.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explicitly explains each parameter: profile_id, page, per_page, and archived. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds meaning beyond type/default information.

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 alerts for a security profile' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tie_scores and tie_topology by focusing on alerts.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to list alerts filtered by profile, pagination, and archived status. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently clear to guide selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses key defaults (include_closed=False, limit=50, order=desc) and explains the meaning of order and the requirement of resource scoping. It does not mention pagination, auth, or error behavior, but for a read-only list tool this is reasonable. It adds value beyond the schema by describing the effect of parameters.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief context paragraph with an example, and a clean list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool.

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 covers the necessary context thoroughly. It explains the required scoping, all parameters with defaults, and provides an example. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in the Args section. It clarifies resource_type values, resource_value meaning, attack_type_ids examples (DCSync, Kerberoasting), ISO 8601 for dates, and default values. This is essential and well done.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List IoA attack instances for a resource within a profile.' This clearly states the tool's function and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tie_alerts or tie_search_events that target different data. The example further clarifies the intended use.

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 states that the TIE API requires scoping attacks to a resource and gives a concrete example with resource_type and resource_value. This provides clear context for when and how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing the tool's behavior. It clearly states that the tool lists resources and paths, and the instruction to call it first implies it is a safe, read-only discovery operation. The context signals also confirm no parameters are needed, reinforcing that it is a straightforward listing action.

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. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the action and target.

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 (no parameters, no complex logic) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know. It explains what the tool returns (a list of resources and paths) and when to invoke it (first). The absence of side effects and the read-only nature are implied clearly enough for a catalog discovery tool.

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 input schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter information to clarify. The description correctly adds no parameter details because none exist. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'all available Tenable Identity Exposure API resources and their paths', which precisely states what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by framing itself as the discovery entry point, saying 'Call this first to discover what resources exist before using other tools.'

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call this first to discover what resources exist before using other tools.' This clearly indicates the intended usage context. However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternative scenarios, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return fields, the size/performance advantage (~100x smaller), and clarifies that checkers have no native severity/criticality score. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, the context makes it obvious; a 4 reflects strong transparency with minor omissions.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, followed by return field details, performance context, and usage guidance. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence serves a purpose, so it remains concise without padding.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's purpose, output, performance characteristics, and relationship to sibling tools, all within a zero-parameter context. It also explains a domain-specific nuance (remediationCost vs severity) and directs to external resources when needed, leaving no significant gaps.

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 0 parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. Per the rubric, zero params earns a baseline score of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none 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 states a specific verb ('Get all') and resource ('IoE checker definitions') with a clear scope ('essential fields only'). It explicitly contrasts with tie_resource_action resource="checkers", thereby distinguishing it from a sibling tool.

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 lists use cases: 'enumerate checkers, build a remediation plan, or map deviance checkerId values to human-readable names.' It also notes the alternative for full data (tie_resource_action) and points to Tenable One for AES/ACR scoring, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses server-side date filtering, defaults to the last 24h, truncation of attribute values when verbose=False, pagination behavior, and show_ignored semantics. It stops short of mentioning authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but for a read-only search tool it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary, a clarifying note about time windows, and a bulleted Args list. It is longer due to 11 parameters, but each sentence and bullet is informative. A tighter wording (e.g., combining some defaults) could slightly improve it, but it is not bloated.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, defaults, and endpoint behavior. It mentions server-side execution and verbose truncation, which helps infer return shape, but it does not explicitly describe the response structure or error scenarios. Still, it is nearly complete for a list/query tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section explains all 11 parameters with types, defaults, and formats (e.g., 'ISO 8601 UTC start', 'default: all directories in scope', 'ignored if date_start given'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 opens with 'Find AD objects with IoE deviances for a checker within a time window,' which is a specific verb + resource + scope statement. It clearly positions this as the time-filterable deviance query, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tie_deviances_by_checker, tie_deviances_bulk, and tie_deviances_by_directory.

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 frames this as 'the time-filterable deviance query' and explains when to use hours vs. explicit date_start/date_end, implying this is the go-to for time-windowed deviance lookups. It also cross-references tie_profiles for profile selection, offering practical context, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden and delivers. It discloses pagination mechanics (cursor pagination, 1–5 API calls), the safety cap logic, and the data fields returned (checkerId, adObjectId). It also clarifies the client-side filtering behavior for profile_id, which is beyond parameter semantics.

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 concise and well-structured with a purpose-led opening, a data note, and a parameter list. Each sentence earns its place; no fluff 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?

The description covers the tool's functionality, pagination behavior, parameter semantics, and ID resolution paths. It doesn't fully describe the output record structure beyond the two key fields, but given the context and sibling tools, it is sufficient for the agent to invoke correctly.

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 description includes an Args section that explains each parameter's purpose and behavior, going far beyond the schema's type/default only. It defines client-side filtering, resolved inclusion logic, batch size meaning, and the max_batches safety cap with concrete record limits. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 fetches all IoE deviances in a paginated bulk call, distinguishing it from the per-checker fan-out approach. It also positions it as the recommended starting point for remediation workflows, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 identifies this as the bulk alternative to per-checker fan-out and recommends it for remediation-plan workflows. It also instructs users on how to map IDs using sibling tools, providing clear usage context. It stops short of explicitly naming the per-checker alternatives, but the context signals and sibling list imply them.

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

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the TIE API models this as a POST with a filter body, explains the effect of the verbose flag on token usage, and states the no-date-filter constraint. These insights go beyond what a simple 'list' would imply and are crucial for an agent to anticipate output size and API semantics.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, and the subsequent Args block is necessary given the schema lacks descriptions. While the text is a bit longer than minimal, every sentence earns its place—the POST body detail and verbose explanation are useful, not redundant. A slightly leaner formatting could tighten it, but it remains efficient.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, alternatives, parameter semantics, and even output verbosity control. It does not explicitly describe the return structure, but the phrase 'List IoE deviances' and the verbose flag sufficiently imply the output format. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description's Args block fully compensates by documenting all six parameters with meaningful details. It explains checker_id references the checkers resource, profile_id default, page and per_page pagination, expression as an optional filter object defaulting to {}, and verbose behavior. This adds far more value than the bare schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List IoE deviances for a given checker within a profile (full detail, no date filter).' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly noting the absence of a date filter, making it immediately obvious what the tool does and how it differs from tie_deviances or tie_recent_activity.

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 provides alternative tools for time-bounded queries: 'For a time-bounded view use tie_deviances(hours=...) or tie_recent_activity instead.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, along with named alternatives. It also explains that an empty expression returns all deviances, further clarifying expected usage.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that there is no date filter, that it returns full detail, and that verbose=False drops giant attribute values and renders descriptions – concrete behavior beyond the schema.

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?

A one-line summary is followed by a tidy Arg list with each parameter on its own line. No redundant filler; all lines add semantic value.

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?

It covers the tool's purpose and all parameters, but since there is no output schema, it doesn't describe the shape of the returned deviance items or error handling. The absence of explicit alternative-tool guidance leaves a small gap in the overall context.

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 Args block explains all five parameters, including page being 1-based, per_page as results per page, verbose behavior, and pointers to resource schemas. Since the schema itself has no descriptions, this fully compensates.

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 opens with 'List IoE deviances for a specific directory', providing a clear verb and scoped resource. 'Full detail, no date filter' adds behavioral scope and differentiates it from siblings like tie_deviances and tie_deviances_by_checker.

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?

It clearly states this is for a specific directory, which implies the primary use case. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses exclusionary guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple list statement by explaining the data scoping relationship and the need for explicit profile_id, which is important context. Though it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only', the listing verb and context make the safe-read behavior clear.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return fields (id+name), the reason the tool exists, and how to use the result. It tells the user exactly why they need this tool and what to do with the output, making it complete.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the significance of profile_id that consumers of this tool will use, even though it doesn't need to describe any parameters for this tool itself.

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 lists security profiles with their id and name. It provides a specific verb and resource, and it stands apart from sibling tools by being the only one focused on profiles, which are foundational for other operations.

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 explains that IoE/IoA data is scoped to a profile and that the console's selected profile is not exposed via API, so users must pass the correct profile_id explicitly to other tools. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool and how to apply its results.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details how IoE alerts are enriched, how IoA is sourced per directory, how results are merged and sorted, UTC timestamp usage, and the separate budgeting of max_items with truncation reported in 'notes.' This is comprehensive and goes far beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then logically flows into data sources, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value; the 'Args' list is a compact and clear way to document seven parameters without verbose prose. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides substantial context: data sources, enrichment, merging, sorting, truncation reporting, and defaults. It does not explicitly describe the output item structure, but the mention of 'deviance detail (checker + rendered description)' gives a partial picture. This is strong but leaves some ambiguity about the exact return format.

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 schema provides only titles and defaults with zero descriptions, but the description's 'Args' section thoroughly explains every parameter, including hours, profile_id, include_ioe/ioa, directory_ids, max_items, and verbose. It also clarifies nuanced behavior like max_items applying separately to IoE and IoA and 'across all directories' for IoA. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with 'Unified recent-activity timeline of IoE alerts and IoA attacks in one call,' which uses a specific verb ('timeline') and clearly identifies the resource and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tie_alerts and tie_attacks, which likely handle each category separately. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives a concrete example question ('show me IoE/IoA in the last 12 hours') and explains the data sources, which implies when to use this tool. It references tie_profiles for the profile_id parameter, providing a cross-tool pointer. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: refusal of absolute URLs for security, the --allow-writes requirement for non-GET, credential endpoint blocking, and the return type (parsed JSON). Missing details like error handling or rate limits, but the security constraints add meaningful 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 efficiently structured with a clear lead sentence, security context, parameter list, and return type. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 generic raw API caller with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, parameters, and return type adequately. It could be more complete by mentioning error/status handling or authentication nuances, but the provided information is solid for typical use.

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?

Even though the schema has 0% description coverage, the description's Args section fully explains each parameter. It clarifies the method enum, gives concrete path examples ('/api/directories' or '/api/attacks/123'), and defines params and body as optional dicts with usage notes. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 states 'Make a direct HTTP call to any Tenable Identity Exposure API endpoint' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this generic raw API caller from sibling tools that wrap specific endpoints.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool (for any endpoint, especially those not covered by dedicated tools) and explicitly lists constraints (server-relative paths only, --allow-writes for non-GET, credential endpoints refused). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say 'use this when no other tool applies'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that writes require --allow-writes, lists protected resources that are refused, and notes that credential resources are refused for all actions. This is strong transparency, though it does not cover error behavior or response format.

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 organized with a purpose sentence, an Args list, a restrictions paragraph, and examples. It is longer than strictly minimal but every section contributes necessary information for a generic CRUD tool; 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?

For a single generic CRUD tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers operations, parameters, restrictions, and examples. It is missing return-value and error behavior details and does not explicitly point to tie_catalog for resource discovery, but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% parameter descriptions, but the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining every parameter, enumerating the five actions, and providing concrete examples for resource, action, params, and body. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal default values.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement ('Perform CRUD operations on a TIE resource') and enumerates the supported actions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the generic CRUD endpoint, though it does not explicitly contrast with dedicated resource tools like tie_attacks or tie_catalog.

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 usage context by requiring a resource from tie_catalog and giving concrete examples, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this generic tool over specialized siblings or when not to use it. The restrictions on protected resources are mentioned, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format as a list of {directoryId, score} and interprets the score direction ('higher is better; scores reflect outstanding IoE deviances'), which is valuable context. The verb 'Get' and 'Returns' imply a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state side-effect freedom or error behavior.

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 compact and well-structured: a purpose statement, a return-value explanation, and a parameter description. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary fluff.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential input and output semantics. It explains the returned list structure and score interpretation, making it nearly complete. It does not define 'IoE deviances' or cover pagination, but these may be domain-specific or irrelevant for this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning 'Security profile id' and notes the default value, which the schema alone does not provide. This is adequate for the single parameter.

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 per-directory security scores for a profile', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on scores rather than raw deviances or topology.

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 it is used for retrieving a summary of security posture per directory, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives like tie_deviances_by_directory, nor does it state exclusions. The context is clear but no direct comparisons are given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this thoroughly: explains the lack of server-side search, describes client-side scanning semantics, warns about pagination (~1000 per page, ~2 MB each), and tells users to inspect `scanned`/`truncated` in results. This goes far beyond a typical tersely-worded tool description.

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?

Though longer than average, the description's length is justified by the tool's complexity and lack of annotations. The structure is effective: opening purpose, an IMPORTANT behavioral caveat block, a sibling-alternative line, then a cleanly labeled Args list. Every sentence communicates essential operational knowledge, with 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?

The description covers purpose, behavioral constraints, parameter semantics, defaults, result interpretation (`scanned`/`truncated`), and alternatives. Even without an output schema, the tool's return behavior is adequately conveyed. This is a complete, self-sufficient description for a complex search tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for every parameter. It does: `query` (substring matching, case-insensitive, against specific attributes), `directory_id`, `object_class` (LDAP objectClass vs the object's own `type` field), `max_results`, `max_scanned`, `timestamp`, and `verbose` all receive meaningful semantic explanations beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find Active Directory objects whose name or DN contains `query`.' It clearly distinguishes this from deviance-focused siblings by explicitly naming tie_deviances and tie_deviances_by_checker as the preferred server-side alternatives for deviance investigation.

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 states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For deviance investigation prefer tie_deviances / tie_deviances_by_checker, which are filtered server-side.' It also provides critical usage caveats about client-side filtering, `max_scanned`, and reading `scanned`/`truncated` before concluding an object doesn't exist.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has any side effects, pagination behavior, or output format. The term 'search' implies read-only, but it is not explicitly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with a concise one-sentence purpose, followed by a well-structured Args list. Every line adds necessary detail, and there is no redundant or filler content. The structure is easy to parse and appropriately sized for the 6-parameter tool.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. While the parameter documentation is complete, the description lacks any indication of the return value, response structure, or potential limitations like pagination. Given the absence of an output schema, this leaves a notable gap for an agent to understand what the tool actually returns.

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 Args section thoroughly documents all six parameters, including formats (e.g., ISO 8601 for dates), defaults (e.g., profile_id default 1), and examples (e.g., ordering object). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, providing meaning beyond the bare type and title information.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('AD security events'), and scope ('within a date range'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'tie_search_ad_objects', which searches AD objects instead of events.

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 for searching security events but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. A clear context is present, but no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output scope (domains, forests, trust relationships) and the read-only nature is implied by 'Get', but it does not mention authentication, permissions, or return format details.

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: one purpose sentence followed by a single parameter definition. Every word adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description does a good job of stating what the tool returns (domains, forests, trust relationships). It lacks details on response structure or edge cases, but it is sufficient for a simple read-only topology query.

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 schema only provides a type and default for profile_id. The description adds essential meaning by clarifying it is a 'Security profile id', compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('Active Directory topology') with an explicit enumeration of the content (domains, forests, and trust relationships). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tie_search_ad_objects or tie_catalog.

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 for retrieving AD topology but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, so the context is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that the data comes from the API key, which implies no separate login flow, and the verb 'Get' implies a safe read operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no state is modified or describe error handling for invalid keys, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 no-argument tool, the description is complete: it states the returned information (identity, roles, permissions) and the source (API key). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the return value's nature for the tool's low complexity.

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, so the schema already fully documents argument expectations. The description adds no parameter details but this is unnecessary; a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to compensate for.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current user's identity, roles, and permissions'), distinguishing it from sibling tools which all focus on data listings, scoring, or actions rather than user context.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve current user info) and notes the API key as the source, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since no sibling tool serves this purpose, the guidance is adequate without being explicit.

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