threatfoxGetIocs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states that it returns IOCs. It fails to disclose potential limitations (e.g., result count limits, pagination), whether the operation is idempotent, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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, clear sentence that gets to the point without unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices helpful detail for brevity, preventing a higher score.

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 tool returning IOCs, the description omits important context such as the format or structure of the output (e.g., list of hashes, IPs, etc.), any default ordering, or whether output is paginated. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should fill this gap but does not.

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?

The input schema already describes the 'days' parameter with full details (range, default). The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves recent IOCs from ThreatFox with a time range parameter. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like threatfoxSearch or threatfoxTag, but the purpose is specific enough to distinguish from broader threat intelligence tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over other ThreatFox tools (e.g., threatfoxTag for tag-specific IOCs) or any non-ThreatFox tools in the sibling list.

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