explain_attack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output includes internal mechanism, PoC, detection, and mitigation, which is useful, but it does not mention operational behaviors like whether it executes code, output format, or auth requirements. A plain text-generation tool was not explicitly ruled out.

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, concise sentence in Spanish that front-loads the purpose and immediately lists the key contents. Every word earns its place; no redundant or vague filler is present.

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 text-generation tool with no output schema, the description adequately defines the output components (mechanism, PoC, detection, mitigation) and the parameter schema fills in the rest. It could have clarified the output format or length, but that is not essential for an AI agent to use it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself thoroughly documents each parameter (attack, depth, include_poc, include_defense) with descriptions and defaults.

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 ('Explicación técnica profunda') and clearly names the resource categories (ataque, vulnerabilidad, técnica ofensiva, CVE). It lists concrete deliverables (mecanismo interno, PoC, detección y mitigación), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_cve or get_cheatsheet.

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 by stating it covers any attack/vulnerability/technique/CVE and includes PoC, detection, and mitigation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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