extract_iocs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a dict keyed by indicator type (only types found) and handles defanged indicators, but does not specify behavior for empty inputs (e.g., returns empty dict or None) or any performance considerations.

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 three concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 a single parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core functionality, supported IOC types, and return format. However, it omits details about how to handle cases with no indicators found, which is a minor gap for completeness.

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?

There is only one parameter 'text' with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds that it expects free-form text or log output, but no further details on constraints like length, encoding, or format are provided, which is minimal value 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 clearly states the tool extracts indicators of compromise from free-form text or log output. It lists specific indicator types (IPv4, URLs, domains, hashes, CVE IDs) and mentions handling defanged indicators, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like defang_ioc and refang_ioc.

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 for text containing IOCs and mentions defanged handling, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like hash_text or cidr_info. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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