list_ioc_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about per-type counts and that only groups with IOCs are returned, but does not add substantial behavior beyond that. No contradiction exists.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, supported by a compact list of common IOC types and a clearly formatted Args section.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description fully supports correct invocation. The output schema exists to cover return shape, annotations cover safety, and the description covers filtering semantics and example values.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of ioc_type. It does: 'Only return groups holding this IOC type, e.g. "ip"' plus a list of common values. This gives the agent the semantics and an example, though it does not explicitly state that omitting the parameter returns all groups.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'List ransomware groups that have IOCs on file, with per-type counts.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_groups or list_yara_groups by scoping to groups with IOCs and adding count behavior.

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 the tool: to list ransomware groups with IOCs, optionally filtered by ioc_type. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the optional parameter guidance and examples make the intended usage unambiguous.

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