threatfoxMalware

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

The description discloses the input format and that it returns IOCs, but does not mention behavioral traits such as rate limits, authorization requirements, or the nature of the output (e.g., list of indicators, pagination). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency, and it falls short on these details.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the essential information. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core action and input format. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., structure of IOCs, whether it returns a list or details), which would be expected without an output schema. This gap reduces completeness.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates the malware family naming convention (Malpedia format), which is already present in the schema. Thus, the description adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema provides, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 specifies the action (search), the resource (ThreatFox IOCs), the filter (malware family), and the required naming convention (Malpedia). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like threatfoxSearch (general search) and threatfoxTag (by tag).

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 implicitly guides when to use this tool: when searching for IOCs by a specific malware family in Malpedia format. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context of sibling tool names (threatfoxGetIocs, threatfoxSearch) provides some differentiation.

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