contrastapi

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as what threat intelligence sources are queried, whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or what data structure is returned.

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?

While extremely brief (two words), this represents under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. The description contains zero informational sentences that earn their place.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is utterly inadequate. It provides no information about the threat intelligence data returned or how it relates to the input domain.

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% (empty string for domain parameter), and the description completely omits any explanation of the domain parameter's expected format, examples, or validation rules.

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 'Threat Intel' is a pure tautology that restates the tool name 'threat_intel' without specifying what the tool actually does (e.g., whether it retrieves, analyzes, or scores threat data).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like domain_report, ip_lookup, or cve_lookup. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion criteria.

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