sentinel_analytics_rules_count_by_tactic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level, with no information about permissions, rate limits, output format, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is inadequate for a tool with unknown behavioral traits.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple counting operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the missing structured information, leaving users guessing about how to use the tool and what to expect from it.

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 one parameter 'kwargs' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't explain what 'kwargs' should contain, how to specify tactics, or any filtering options. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented.

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 'Count Sentinel analytics rules by tactic' clearly states the action (count) and resource (Sentinel analytics rules), but it's somewhat vague about what 'by tactic' means operationally. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sentinel_analytics_rule_list' (which lists rules) and 'sentinel_analytics_rules_count_by_technique' (which counts by technique instead of tactic), but lacks specificity on the counting mechanism.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for counting by tactic, or compare it to similar tools like 'sentinel_analytics_rules_count_by_technique' or 'sentinel_analytics_rule_templates_count_by_tactic'. Users must infer usage from the name alone.

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