pivot_by_ip

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 clearly describes the read-only nature (pivot, returns) and details the expected output categories (summary, destination analysis, auth events, data transfer). However, it lacks any mention of potential performance costs, permission requirements, or limitations of the cross-index search, which would be valuable for an agent to know.

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-structured with a purpose statement, context, and a clearly formatted Args/Returns section. The second sentence about being 'critical' for SOC workflows adds context but could be seen as slight redundancy. Overall, every section earns its place, though the Returns section is somewhat verbose.

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 tool appears to be a complex read operation with three parameters and a rich return structure. The description explains the comprehensive output and provides examples for parameters. However, it omits details about potential resource intensity, auth requirements, or failure modes, which would make it fully complete for an agent to use safely and effectively.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% coverage, the description's Args section provides meaningful examples and semantics: ip_address with a concrete example, timeframe with Splunk format examples, and max_results clarified as 'per category'. This compensates for the bare schema and adds practical usage guidance beyond param names and types.

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 ('Pivot on IP address') and clearly identifies the resource ('across all indexes and sourcetypes') for comprehensive IP analysis. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_splunk by focusing on cross-source pivoting, and the detailed return categories make its scope unmistakable.

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 states this is a critical tool for traditional SOC analyst workflows and emphasizes a complete view of IP activity, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the scope and output descriptions make it obvious this is for broad IP investigation, not targeted searches.

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