extract_indicators

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states a safety-critical behavior: 'Never resolves domains or makes network requests,' and also clarifies that defanged notations are handled. It could add more about edge cases or empty results, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the action and object, enumerates relevant indicator types, and ends with an important safety constraint. Every phrase earns its place.

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 low complexity, one required parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, what input it expects, and a key behavioral guarantee. It does not mention fallback behavior or limitations, but nothing critical is missing for calling this tool correctly.

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?

The schema only defines 'content' as a string with no description, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics by stating the parameter should contain text or source code and that defanged notations are acceptable. This is sufficient for the single-parameter interface, though more detail on size limits or encoding would be even better.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Extract') and a concrete resource ('potential security indicators'), then enumerates the indicator types. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like analyze_script or explain_command, which perform different operations on similar inputs.

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 makes the intended use case clear: extract indicators from text or source code, including defanged notation. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select this tool for IOC extraction.

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