investigate_ioc

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The output schema exists but the description doesn't reference it, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 concise sentence, front-loading key information. However, it could be more structured, e.g., listing parameters or output briefly. No waste, but slight under-specification.

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 the tool aggregates multiple sources (MISP matches, events, tags, warninglists), the description is too brief. It doesn't explain the output format, return structure, or how results are combined, despite having an output schema. Leaves the agent with incomplete context.

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%, but the description only elaborates on the 'value' parameter (IOC) implicitly. The 'limit' parameter is not explained, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 investigates an IOC using MISP matches, events, tags, and warninglists. It differentiates from siblings like check_warninglists (which only checks warninglists) and search_ioc (which may only search) by implying a broader aggregation. However, 'investigate' is somewhat vague and could be more specific.

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 like explain_event_context or search_ioc. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit exclusions or recommendations.

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