training.get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Retrieve' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what the return format looks like. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational 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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more informative given the tool's complexity. It earns a 4 for being concise but loses a point for under-specification.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and multiple siblings. It doesn't explain what 'training data' includes, how results are returned, or behavioral aspects like safety or performance. For a retrieval tool in a security context, this leaves significant gaps.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (vulnerabilityType, source, limit) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. 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 'Retrieve training data for learning patterns' states a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('training data'), but it's vague about what 'training data' specifically entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'training.get_csrf_patterns' or 'training.extract_from_writeup'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'training.get_csrf_patterns' (specific to CSRF) and 'training.extract_from_writeup' (extraction-focused), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this general retrieval tool.

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