Analyze Tags Activity

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds value by detailing parameter matching rules and the output summary structure. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences: first summarizes purpose and output, second details parameter behavior. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given an output schema exists (though not shown), the description explains the summary output components and parameter behavior fully. Annotations provide open-world context. The description is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description adds detailed semantics: query matches across multiple fields, category and intention are exact case-insensitive, and days restricted to specific values with default. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action (filter and aggregate), the resource (GreyNoise tags activity), and the output summary (total active IPs by classification, most active tags, per-tag detail). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-tag-details and get-tag-activity by focusing on aggregation.

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 explicit guidelines for parameter matching: query substring-matches name/description/slug/label, category and intention are exact case-insensitive, and days must be 1, 10, or 30. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the aggregation purpose is clear.

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