get_all_cyberattacks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety/open-world behavior is covered. The description adds only the 'all known' scope and does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or what happens without a limit. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four words with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context. The verb, object, and qualifier are all meaningful and front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be improved by explicitly routing to sibling tools, such as get_recent_cyberattacks, but the core invocation is inferable from the schema and description.

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 single optional 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema with min, max, and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('get') and a clear resource ('all known cyberattacks'), and 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_recent_cyberattacks'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives and 'known' is somewhat vague about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool instead of get_recent_cyberattacks, get_country_attacks, or other filtered variants. The only usage signal is the implicit word 'all'.

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