get_cheatsheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'get' implies a read-only retrieval, and the description mentions 'complete and updated', which hints at potential dynamic content. However, it does not disclose any side effects, output format, or external dependencies. Still, for a simple cheatsheet tool, the description is minimally transparent.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word contributes to defining the tool's function. No unnecessary details 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 tool is simple with a well-structured schema and no output schema. The description adequately explains what the cheatsheet contains (real usage examples) and its scope (any hacking/security tool). While it doesn't detail return format, this is not critical given the tool's simplicity and schema quality.

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% with all three parameters (tool_name, context, include_evasion) well documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that tool_name can be any tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 that the tool provides a complete and updated cheatsheet for any hacking/security tool with real pentesting examples. It uses a specific verb ('Obtén') and resource ('cheatsheet de herramienta de hacking/seguridad'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'describe_tool', which could overlap in purpose.

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 when a user needs a cheatsheet with practical examples, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_tool' or 'ask_professor'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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