generate-threat-report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's main behavior: generating a formatted report with risk rating, IOCs, and recommendations. It does not mention side effects, permissions, persistence, or whether it enriches data externally, but for a report-generation tool the core behavior is adequately described.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and the second efficiently lists supported inputs and expected outputs. The most relevant information is front-loaded.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a solid mental model of inputs and outputs. It could be stronger by mentioning the required target and by distinguishing itself from the sibling tools, but the overall picture is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that inputs can be provided in any combination and that observations are free-form, but it omits the required 'target' parameter from its summary and does not elaborate on severity, attack_type, or threat_actor semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Generate' with a clear resource ('structured threat intelligence report') and names the input types (domain, IP, hash, CVE IDs, observations) and output components (risk rating, IOCs, recommended actions). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling analysis/lookup tools.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: gather findings and produce a consolidated TI report. It implies this is the right tool after collecting data, and it is implicitly distinct from the single-purpose siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative.

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