correlate_with_deeptempo_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the process and return values, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects. This is a gap for a tool that interacts with two systems.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, second provides strategic context, then clean Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the details on subfields and outputs justify the length.

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 is comprehensive for the tool's complexity: it covers purpose, usage context, all three parameters (including nested object structure), and return fields. With an output schema present, it does not need to further detail return formats, making this highly 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining finding_id, deeptempo_data with its nested structure (src_ip, dest_ip, timestamp, confidence, mitre_techniques), and timeframe_padding with its default. This is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 specific verb ('Correlate') with a clear resource ('DeepTempo finding') and target ('Splunk evidence'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_splunk by positioning as the cross-platform bridge for AI-native investigation.

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?

Provides clear context: it is 'the key tool for AI-native investigation' and bridges DeepTempo anomalies with Splunk logs. It gives situational guidance but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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