parse_tool_output

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

With no annotations, the description transparently notes that parsing happens locally with no backend call. It also clarifies supported tools. However, it does not address error handling for unsupported tools or malformed input.

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 summary, a brief explanation, a note on local execution, and a clear Args block. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and key behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (output, tool_name, output_format) beyond the schema's type-only definitions, including possible values and defaults. Schema coverage is 0%, so description 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Parse raw security tool output into structured JSON.' It specifies the types of tools (nmap, nuclei, gobuster) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that run these tools rather than parse their output.

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 when to use (when you have raw output from supported tools) and mentions local parsing, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives from sibling tools.

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