qradar_list_offenses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return format ('JSON string containing the list of offenses or error details'), but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention permissions, or describe any other behavioral constraints such as pagination limits.

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 compact, organized into two clear sections, and every bullet provides actionable detail. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, and the key behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple list-operation nature, the fully documented parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything required to call the tool correctly: filter syntax, sort pattern, pagination defaults, and the overall return shape.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly: filter_expr gets syntax examples, sort_by gets the '-' prefix convention, and limit/offset get defaults and semantics. This is exactly the kind of value beyond the raw JSON schema that agents need.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List offenses from QRadar SIEM'. It is clearly distinct from siblings like qradar_get_offense, which targets a single offense, and qradar_health_check, which is about system health. The scope is immediately understandable.

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 appropriate usage through 'optional filter, sorting, and pagination' and explains the argument purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like qradar_get_offense or when not to use it. The guidance is adequate but mostly implicit.

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