malware_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that an external API key (HYBRID_API_KEY) is required, which is a crucial behavioral constraint. It also summarizes the output categories, but does not cover rate limits, destructive potential (none), or response format limitations. For a simple read tool, this is adequate.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first covers purpose and outputs, the second states a critical requirement (API key). No redundant phrases, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one input, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the main response types and a key prerequisite. It lacks information on error handling, pagination, or response size limits, but given the tool's straightforward nature, it is largely complete.

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 100% for the single parameter 'sha256', and its schema description ('SHA256 hash of the file') is clear. The tool description does not add extra details such as expected length, character set, or examples. Since the schema already provides sufficient semantic meaning, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'malware analysis overview', and the required input (SHA256 hash). It lists specific return types (MITRE ATT&CK, network indicators, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle IPs, domains, or other indicator types.

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 implies usage when a SHA256 hash is available and a full analysis is needed, but it does not explicitly compare with alternative hash-analysis tools (e.g., bazaarHash, otx_hash) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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