extract_iocs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool returns deduplicated IOCs with confidence scores, mentions handling of low-confidence items via parameters, and implies processing of forensic/memory analysis data. It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context.

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences with zero waste. The first states the core purpose, the second provides usage context and integration points, the third describes output characteristics. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context about what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect in results. It could be more complete by explicitly describing the output format (beyond 'deduplicated IOCs with confidence scores') or error conditions, but covers the essential operational context well.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions 'include_noise' indirectly ('low-confidence known-good IOCs') but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('extract') and resource ('IOCs from text'), listing concrete indicator types (IPs, domains, URLs, hashes, registry keys). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying its role in the workflow (processing output from run_tool or analyze_file) rather than performing analysis or file operations directly.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Pass output from run_tool or analyze_file to identify indicators') and mentions specific compatible data sources ('Works well with Volatility 3 plugin output'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings for similar extraction tasks.

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