threat_intel_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only states 'lookup', implying a read operation, but omits details about authorization needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with no results. This is insufficient for a security tool.

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 extremely concise (8 words), but comprehensiveness is sacrificed. While every sentence earns its place, the single sentence lacks detail crucial for accurate tool selection and invocation.

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 tool's security context and lack of output schema, the description should explain return values, interpretation of results, and integration with other tools. It fails to provide this, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct usage.

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 low (33%) and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema. Required parameters 'indicator' and 'indicator_type' have no description, and the enum is self-explanatory but not clarified. The optional parameter has a schema description, but the tool description fails to compensate for the covered gaps.

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 clearly states the verb 'lookup' and resource 'IOC' against threat intel feeds, making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cve_lookup' and 'secret_scan' by focusing on indicators of compromise, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for specific indicator types), prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context.

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