Discover co-occurring threat patterns from normalized defensive scan signals, revealing emergent fleet-wide attack clusters to guide targeted defensive responses.
Discover co-occurring emergent fleet threat patterns from normalized defensive scan signals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| signals | Yes | ||
| minSupport | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates an analytical/discovery operation but does not mention whether it is read-only, what output or return value to expect, whether it mutates state, or any side effects or prerequisites.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a purpose statement, though it could have used additional structured detail about parameters and usage without becoming bloated.
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 two parameters (one nested), no output schema, no annotations, and several similarly named sibling tools, this description is substantially incomplete. It provides only the core purpose and omits usage guidance, parameter semantics, behavioral disclosures, and differentiation from siblings.
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% and the description does not explain either parameter. 'Signals' is hinted at by the phrase 'scan signals,' but the required nested fields (assetId, cohort, signature, severity) and the meaning of minSupport are left entirely undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') and a concrete resource ('co-occurring emergent fleet threat patterns' from 'normalized defensive scan signals'). It gives a clear sense of what the tool computes, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling immune_* tools.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like immune_synthesize, immune_crystallize, or immune_recall. The description implies the input is scan signals, but it never states conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.