Retrieve recent intelligence reports generated by eYKON Sub-Agents. Returns structured reports with severity, narrative, and entity references.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hours | No | Look-back hours (default 48) | |
| domain | No | air_traffic, maritime, conflict_security, energy_infrastructure, satellite_imagery | |
| severity | No | low | medium | high | critical (minimum) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that reports are 'recent' and 'structured' with severity, narrative, and entity references, which is useful but does not disclose details like default time window behavior, pagination, or how severity filtering interacts with the 'minimum' semantics beyond the schema.
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 that front-loads the main action and resource, then adds a brief note on return contents. It is concise and structured well, though it could be slightly more informative about usage context.
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?
For a read-only query tool with no output schema and three optional parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the default look-back behavior, how severity 'minimum' works, or how this tool relates to the many sibling query tools. An agent could call it correctly but might not know when to prefer 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context that reports include severity and entity references, which aligns with the severity parameter, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for hours or domain. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('intelligence reports generated by eYKON Sub-Agents'), and mentions the report contents (severity, narrative, entity references). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling query tools beyond the 'reports' resource.
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 for retrieving recent intelligence reports, and the parameters (hours, domain, severity) suggest filtering use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling query tools like query_entities or query_conflicts, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.