correlate

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. While the description implies analytic operations, it fails to clarify what happens with invalid inputs or whether it modifies any state.

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 sentence that lists multiple capabilities side by side. It is concise but dense, making it harder to parse quickly. There is no use of structure (e.g., bullet points) to separate different correlation types. The core purpose is front-loaded, but the list is somewhat run-on.

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?

The tool has 31 parameters, complex nested schemas, and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, error handling, or how the 'type' field determines which parameters are relevant. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient for selecting proper input combinations or interpreting results.

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% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (including nested objects). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For each parameter, the schema already indicates its purpose (e.g., 'for c2', 'for topology'), so the description does not further enhance semantics.

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 is a 'Cross-layer correlation engine' and lists specific actions like validation, detection, comparison, topology reconstruction, and C2 detection. The verb 'correlate' with specific outcomes is well-defined, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze' or 'enumerate', which may overlap.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, data needed, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., scan_*) would be more appropriate. The description only lists capabilities without context.

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