sentinel_hunting_queries_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the results return. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the single required parameter's usage, return format, behavioral constraints, or how it differs from related hunting query tools. The description leaves too many gaps for effective agent usage.

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% with 1 required parameter ('kwargs'), but the description only mentions 'optional tactic/technique filtering' without explaining how to use the kwargs parameter for this filtering. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter's purpose and format unclear.

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 action ('List all') and resource ('Sentinel hunting queries/saved searches') with optional filtering capability. It distinguishes from siblings like sentinel_hunting_query_get (singular) and sentinel_hunting_queries_count_by_tactic (counts rather than lists), but doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions.

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 usage context through 'optional tactic/technique filtering' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like sentinel_hunting_queries_count_by_tactic or sentinel_hunting_query_get. No guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions is provided.

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