get_risky_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the required license (Cortex XSIAM Premium or Identity Threat Module) and the read-only nature via the verb 'Retrieve'. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or pagination, though these may not be critical for a simple get operation.

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 succinct and well-structured, with a title, one-sentence functional description, license requirement, and endpoint reference. Every part serves a purpose, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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, parameter-less tool, the description covers the purpose, license prerequisite, and expected output (list with reasons). It does not specify any limits or sorting, but this is not essential for a straightforward retrieval. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the clear description of results.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on the output and license requirement.

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 'Retrieve a list of endpoints with the highest risk score in your environment along with the reason for each score.' This provides a specific verb (retrieve), resource (endpoints with highest risk score), and scope (your environment), distinguishing it from siblings like get_risky_users or get_risk_score.

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 you need endpoints with the highest risk scores, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_risky_users. It does mention the required license, which is a prerequisite, but not comparative usage guidance.

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