abnormal_threats_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is paginated and returns threat IDs with summary information, which is useful. It does not mention read-only status, authentication needs, rate limits, or what exactly 'summary information' contains.

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?

A single sentence that gets straight to the point: what is listed, the source system, and the return shape. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple list tool with fully described parameters, the description is mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and 'summary information' is vague; the agent cannot predict the exact response structure or pagination metadata. The ambiguity around 'threats and cases' also leaves a gap in context.

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 documents filter, pageSize, and pageNumber. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond saying the result is paginated, which the schema already communicates through pageSize/pageNumber.

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 ('List') and names the resource ('detected threats and cases from Abnormal Security'), so an agent can tell this is a listing operation. However, the phrase 'threats and cases' is ambiguous next to sibling abnormal_cases_list, and the mention of 'threat IDs' muddies whether cases are actually included.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over abnormal_cases_list, abnormal_threats_get, or abnormal_cases_get. The description implies a listing use case but provides no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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