io.github.AIops-tools/symantec-edr-aiops

edr_sandbox_patterns

Read-only

Read sandbox patterns for a file SHA2 hash to understand sandbox behavior and support endpoint incident investigations.

Instructions

[READ] Read sandbox patterns.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sha2": "<sha2>"
    },
    "name": "edr_sandbox_patterns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sha2`	Yes
`limit`	No
`next_cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' label merely repeats that. The description adds no behavioral context such as whether results are paginated, how much history is retained, or whether an empty result is meaningful — all relevant for a 3-parameter lookup.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight writing; the single fragment adds nothing actionable beyond the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a set of closely related sandbox siblings, a one-line restatement leaves the agent without the information needed to invoke it correctly or interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions sha2, limit, or next_cursor. An agent cannot tell that sha2 is a required file hash selector, what limit defaults to, or how cursor-based pagination works.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description restates the tool name almost verbatim ('Read sandbox patterns'), with no explanation of what a 'pattern' is in this domain (IOC matching? behavioral signatures?). It also fails to distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as edr_sandbox_verdict, edr_sandbox_activities, and edr_sandbox_events.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no pointer to alternative sandbox tools for different questions. The only hint is the '[READ]' tag, which conveys no selection guidance.

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