training.match

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 'match' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is read-only or mutative, what 'learned patterns' refers to (e.g., from training imports), expected output format, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a tool with 4 required parameters.

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 action ('Match'), though it could be more structured by explicitly linking parameters to the purpose. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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, no output schema, and 4 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'matching' entails (e.g., returns boolean, score, or details), how patterns are learned, or the tool's role in the training workflow. For a parameter-rich tool in a security testing context, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 4 parameters (vulnerabilityType, target, payload, response) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters relate to a 'current test' and 'learned patterns', but it doesn't explain their interrelationships or usage nuances. 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 'Match current test against learned patterns' states a general purpose (matching tests to patterns) but is vague about what constitutes 'current test' or 'learned patterns'. It doesn't specify the resource being matched (e.g., vulnerability data) or distinguish from siblings like training.extract_from_writeup or training.get_csrf_patterns. The verb 'match' is clear 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for testing against patterns, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after training import), or exclusions. Sibling tools like training.get or security.test_xss suggest overlapping domains without differentiation.

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