tie_checkers_summary

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.