check_c2_blocklist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a yes/no with per-source provenance, mentions authentication requirements for certain sources, and includes a security warning about untrusted data. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but the behavioral disclosure is adequate.

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 well-structured across three short paragraphs: first defines purpose, second details sources and authentication, third adds security warning. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no unnecessary words.

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 a single parameter and an output schema (context signals indicate output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context: what it checks, which blocklists, authentication needs, and data trustworthiness. No additional context is needed.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'indicator' and its description. The tool description reiterates the same information (IP, domain, URL) without adding new semantic context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks whether an IP/domain is a known botnet C2, lists specific blocklists (Feodo, ThreatFox, URLhaus), and mentions the return type (yes/no with provenance). It distinguishes from sibling tools like enrich_ioc or scan_url by focusing on C2 intelligence.

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 implicitly defines usage for C2 checking and notes key requirements (Feodo no API key, ThreatFox/URLhaus need configured key). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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