threat_rules__evaluate_text

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 notes that matches come with 'follow-up scanner hints', which is useful output context, but says nothing about permissions, cost, rate limits, or how the enforce/alert/hunt lanes change behavior.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The purpose leads and the return hint follows, which is efficient for a short description.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and only 60% schema coverage, the description should explain more. It does not clarify what 'matches' or 'follow-up scanner hints' contain, nor how lane/type affect results.

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 60% and the description adds no meaning to any of the five parameters. Terms like 'lane', 'type', and 'scanContext' are only defined by the schema enums, and the description never explains their effect.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluate free text against Agent Threat Rules (ATR) plus GuardBee KVKK/TR rules.' The phrase 'free text' implicitly distinguishes it from evaluate_file and evaluate_event, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. It never tells the agent why it would pick this over threat_rules__evaluate_event or evaluate_file, nor what lane/type selection implies for the outcome.

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