get_risky_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the required license and that the response includes reasons for each score, but does not detail response structure, pagination, limits, or authentication requirements beyond the license. The POST method is noted, but that is more of an API detail.

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 concise and front-loads the purpose with a clear one-line explanation. However, the line 'Get Risky Users' is redundant with the tool name, adding a small amount of waste. The license and endpoint information are useful and compact.

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 parameterless tool without an output schema, the description conveys the core return value ('users with highest risk scores along with reasons'), plus license and endpoint. However, it leaves ambiguity about how many users are returned and whether they are sorted, and does not mention any filters or scoping options, so it is not fully complete.

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 description correctly provides no parameter-specific information, matching the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist.

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 a list of users with the highest risk score along with the reason affecting each score. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_risky_hosts, which targets hosts instead of users.

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 context by stating the tool works 'in your environment' and lists required license (Cortex XSIAM Premium or Identity Threat Module), implying when it can be used. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_risky_hosts or explain when to prefer one over the other, so usage guidance is only implied.

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