indicators_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states the AND-condition only, zero-based offset, a maximum result set size (though phrased ambiguously as '>100'), and required permissions. It also gives the REST endpoint and an example request. However, it does not describe the response shape or error behavior, which keeps it from earning a 5.

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-organized: a summary line, bullet points for key behaviors, UI navigation, permissions, endpoint, and an example. It is somewhat verbose with repeated phrasing ('Get Indicators' and 'Get a list of IOCs'), but each section serves a purpose and the example is practical. Overall, it is concise relative to the amount of useful information present.

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?

The description addresses filtering semantics, pagination, authentication, and endpoint location. It also includes a concrete example. However, it leaves the maximum result set size ambiguous ('>100') and does not explain what the response includes beyond 'all details' when extended_view is true. Since there is no output schema, this omission is noticeable but not fatal given the other covered aspects.

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 input schema already includes rich descriptions for all parameters (fields, values, operators, pagination). The tool description adds an example request body that illustrates how to structure filters and extended_view, which is helpful but does not deeply elaborate on each parameter. Since schema coverage is effectively comprehensive, the description's additional semantic value is marginal, meriting a baseline 3.

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 opens with 'Get Indicators (IOCs)' and 'Get a list of IOCs', clearly identifying the specific action (list/retrieve) and resource (IOCs). It distinguishes from sibling tools like indicators_insert and indicators_delete by focusing on the read operation. The mention of filtering and extended results adds further specificity.

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 concrete usage context: it explains that results can be all IOCs or filtered, notes AND-condition concatenation (OR unsupported), and describes offset behavior. It also mentions required Instance Administrator permissions and gives a UI navigation path. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but sibling tools are clearly distinct actions (insert/delete), so the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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