generate_checklist

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating safe behavior. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether the checklist is dynamically generated, any external dependencies). Given annotations cover safety, a score of 3 is appropriate for minimal added value.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 simple nature of the tool (2 enum parameters) and availability of output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It could benefit from specifying the output format or scope, but it's adequate for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description rephrases the schema ('project type' and 'depth level') without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is correct as 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 'Generate a security testing checklist based on project type and depth level' clearly states the specific verb 'generate', the resource 'security testing checklist', and the criteria 'project type and depth level'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are primarily retrieval or assessment tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for generating checklists, but lacks guidance on when not to use it or what other tools (e.g., get_asvs, get_cheatsheet) might be more appropriate for specific needs.

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