security_triage

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so this is a non-idempotent mutation of some kind, yet the description never says what is written or versioned. 'Preserve uncertainty and version decisions' weakly hints at versioning behavior, but with 14 required inputs describing a recorded finding, the omission of the actual side effect (a persisted triage record?) is a real gap. No contradiction with annotations, but minimal added 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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded, so there is no bloat, but neither clause earns its place: both are too abstract to help an agent act. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a tool with 14 required fields.

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 16-parameter, 14-required mutation tool with nested objects, an enum, and no output schema, the description is essentially empty. It documents no inputs, no effects, and no return expectations; an agent has nothing to work from beyond the raw schema.

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% across 16 parameters (14 required), including two nested objects (claims, business) and an undocumented skill enum. The description compensates for none of this: it names no parameter, no expected input shape, and no format. With the schema unable to carry meaning, the description's silence leaves the entire parameter contract unexplained.

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 phrase 'Evaluate supplied evidence-backed claims' is an abstract verb+resource that never states what the tool concretely produces or persists, and 'preserve uncertainty and version decisions' is opaque meta-language. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like security_severity, security_report, or finding_correct. The description reads as near-tautological restatement for a security-triage tool rather than a clear statement of function.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no named alternatives despite a dense sibling set (security_severity, security_report, finding_correct). 'Preserve uncertainty and version decisions' gestures at a behavioral principle but gives no selection criteria. An agent cannot infer when this tool should be chosen over its siblings.

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