Huntertech.io Vendor Insights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: ordering by start time, anonymous maximum of 5, and the exclusion of monitoring-phase incidents unless authenticated history is requested. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful operational details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, making it appropriately sized and structured.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, scope, ordering, and key access constraints. The only minor gap is the slightly ambiguous phrase 'authenticated history is requested,' but overall the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (limit, timePeriod, includeResolved). The description reinforces the anonymous limit but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus 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 clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('vendor incidents across all monitored vendors'), with scope ('all monitored vendors') and ordering ('newest start first'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_vendor_incidents, which likely targets a specific vendor, and list_monitored_vendors, which lists vendors rather than incidents.

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 context (anonymous maximum of 5, exclusion of monitoring-phase incidents unless authenticated) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool versus sibling tools. The guidance is present but inferred rather than explicit.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: anonymous calls return only ongoing incidents, authenticated calls can access resolved history within a plan window, and the tool is explicitly not a monitoring mechanism. This enriches the agent's understanding of authentication and data scope without contradiction.

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 two sentences: the first fronts the core purpose, the second clarifies behavioral variations. Every clause adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers the tool's scope, authentication modes, and filtering logic. The moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) is well addressed, and no critical missing context is apparent.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by relating vendor specificity to the 'vendor' parameter and explaining how authentication affects 'includeResolved' and 'timePeriod'. However, this mostly reinterprets existing schema descriptions rather than introducing novel information, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 retrieves vendor incident and outage status for a single monitored vendor, with concrete examples (solarwinds, zscaler, cloudflare). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to 'one monitored vendor' versus get_all_vendor_incidents, and from list_monitored_vendors by targeting incidents rather than vendor listings.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for a single vendor's incidents. It also explains behavior differences between anonymous and authenticated calls, implying usage for active incidents versus resolved history. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools for all-vendor incidents or vendor listing, so exclusions are implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the nature of the data (public incident status) and examples of included vendors, but provides no additional behavioral details beyond this. It does not contradict annotations.

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 that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It includes illustrative examples without unnecessary detail, earning its place fully.

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 simple, parameterless list tool with readOnly annotations and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It names the type of data covered and examples of vendors, making the tool's scope clear without needing extra length.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and since the schema has no properties, there is no additional burden on the description.

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 specifies the action ('List') and the resource ('monitored SaaS and infrastructure vendors'), with added context about public incident status data. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on incidents rather than the vendor list itself.

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 when a list of monitored vendors is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over sibling tools or provide exclusions. The distinction from get_vendor_incidents is implicit through the focus on vendors, not incidents.

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