pivot_ioc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states only that the tool 'pivots' (likely a read operation) but does not confirm lack of side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. 'Pivot' could imply transformation but is ambiguous.

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 very concise (one sentence) but at the cost of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the purpose but omits parameter and usage info.

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 has an output schema (unseen) and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'related events and indicators' means or the structure of the output, leaving the agent without sufficient context for correct invocation.

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% and the description provides no details about the two parameters ('value' and 'limit'). It does not explain what format 'value' expects (e.g., IP, hash) or the meaning of 'limit'.

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's purpose: 'Pivot from an IOC to related events and indicators useful for hunting.' It uses a specific verb ('pivot') and resource ('IOC to related events and indicators'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'investigate_ioc' or 'search_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 hunting contexts but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'find_related_iocs' or 'search_ioc'. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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