threatfoxGetIocs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns indicators of compromise,' which reveals the primary read behavior, but doesn't go beyond that to mention rate limits, data formats, or potential side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action ('Get recent IOCs') and ends with a clear elaboration on the time window. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (one well-documented parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and return behavior. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but it doesn't specify the exact output structure. However, for a simple list of IOCs, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter (days) with full details including default, min, max, and description. The tool description's mention of 'last N days' simply restates the schema, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get recent IOCs from ThreatFox (abuse.ch).' It also specifies that it returns indicators of compromise from the last N days, distinguishing it from sibling tools like threatfoxSearch or threatfoxTag which have different scopes.

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 this tool: when you need recent IOCs within a time window. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'last N days' framing implies a temporal query, and the name contrasts with more focused siblings like threatfoxTag or threatfoxSearch.

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