misp_correlate_ioc

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds critical behavioral info: 'Attributes from TLP:AMBER/RED events are skipped entirely unless the operator has opted in to restricted content.' This goes beyond annotations, fully disclosing limitations.

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?

Two sentences: first states function and use case, second summarizes output and security handling. Every word serves a purpose. No redundancy.

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?

Description covers purpose, output format, and security constraints. Given output schema existence and simple parameter set, it is adequately complete. Could mention error scenarios or pagination but not critical.

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?

Input schema already describes both parameters (ioc and limit) with good detail, including acceptable formats and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

Description clearly states it lists other indicators in the same MISP event as a given IOC, with explicit examples (IPs, domains, hashes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like misp_lookup_ioc by focusing on co-occurrence rather than existence check.

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?

Description explains it is 'useful for pivoting from one indicator to related infrastructure', providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like misp_lookup_ioc, which could be improved.

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