alerts_insert_parsed_alerts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds meaningful operational details: rate limits, request size caps, required Cortex XSIAM licenses, and that only successfully parsed alerts are displayed. It does not cover error responses or authentication, but the provided context is substantial.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, limits, license, endpoint, and example body. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and the example is long but justified by the nested schema.

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 complex nested-input tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: endpoint, rate limits, license, request structure via example, and expected display behavior. It lacks explicit return/error semantics, but is sufficiently complete for invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with a complete example request body showing all fields (product, vendor, IPs, ports, event_timestamp, severity, etc.). This gives practical meaning to the nested request_data parameter, though it does not explicitly define field formats or requirements.

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's action: 'Upload alerts from external alert sources in Cortex XSIAM format.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like alerts_insert_cef_alerts by specifying the XSIAM format.

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 for use: it is for external alerts in XSIAM format, includes rate limits (600 per minute, 60 per request), and lists required licenses. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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