create_alert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether the alert triggers case creation), required permissions, error handling for duplicate source_ref, or idempotency. The description focuses on parameter details, not 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?

The description is appropriately sized given the lack of schema descriptions. It front-loads the main purpose and then lists parameters in a structured, readable manner. While a bit lengthy, every sentence earns its place. Could be more concise if schema were richer.

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 has 9 parameters with moderate complexity and an output schema (not shown in context). The description thoroughly documents all parameters but lacks broader context like what happens after creation, how the alert integrates with TheHive workflows, or expected return values. Given the output schema existence, the lack of return value explanation is acceptable, but missing behavioral context reduces completeness.

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 0%, but the description provides comprehensive detail for all 9 parameters: types, examples, default values, and optionality. For example, it explains severity levels (1-4) and gives example values for source. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Create a new Alert in TheHive' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes alerts from cases via context ('Alerts represent potential incidents fetched from SIEMs, emails, etc.'), which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like create_case.

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 implies usage for external incident data (e.g., SIEM, emails), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_case or search_alerts. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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