extract_event_iocs

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions grouping and deduplication but does not specify which IOC types are supported, what happens when an event has no IOCs, or whether the operation is read-only. The lack of annotation makes this gap more significant.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, but it is too brief to cover essential details. It earns a 3 because it is concise but at the expense of completeness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the output contains (e.g., list of IOCs, counts). Two parameters exist, but only one is implicitly referenced. The tool's behavior is not fully specified for an AI agent to use 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 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description implies event_id but does not explain the limit parameter or their expected values/formats. This fails to add meaning 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 action ('extract'), resource ('supported IOC types from a MISP event'), and key features ('grouped and deduplicated'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_ioc (which likely searches across events) or find_related_iocs (which finds related IOCs).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_ioc or investigate_ioc. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or conditions that would inform tool selection.

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