cisco_umbrella_get_activity_amp_retrospective

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions the API endpoint, default limit, and pagination offset, which hint at behavior. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or broader side effects (e.g., whether this is read-only). The word 'List' implies non-mutating, but that is implicit.

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 organized with a purpose line, API endpoint, and a list of args. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. It is longer than a simple two-liner but every line is informative. The structured arg list is easy to scan, though it could be slightly more concise if trimmed.

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 covers purpose, endpoint, and all parameter semantics comprehensively. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Missing pieces are explicit exclusions or caveats (e.g., 'not for DNS events') and any error/edge-case behavior. Overall it is complete for a list operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: from_ and to are explained with accepted formats (epoch ms, ISO-8601, relative offsets), limit has a default, offset is explained as pagination, ampdisposition has an example, sha256 is described, and timezone is defined. 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 'List AMP (Advanced Malware Protection) retrospective activity events' and explains what that means ('files that were re-classified as malicious after they were first seen'). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling activity tools like DNS, proxy, and firewall.

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 context is clear: this tool is for AMP retrospective events, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling activity tools. The description provides enough context for a basic selection decision, but lacks an explicit 'use this when' statement.

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