llm_ioc_candidates

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior by saying 'Return', but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or how the limit parameter affects results. The capture_path parameter indicates it operates on a specific capture, which is helpful 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. While it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points), it is appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks details on how the IOC candidates are extracted (e.g., from which capture) and the effect of the 'limit' parameter, leaving some ambiguity.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. However, the description does not mention 'capture_path' or 'limit' at all, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema's names and types.

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 ('Return') and enumerates the types of IOCs (IPs, domains, HTTP hosts, URIs, user agents, TLS SNI values), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like llm_dns_summary by focusing on IOCs rather than summaries.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., llm_investigate, llm_capture_brief). There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where it is appropriate.

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