investigate_threat

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already conveyed. The description adds useful context about aggregation and return content (indicators, affected assets, timeline, recommendations). No behavioral contradictions exist. It doesn't mention rate limits or permissions, but those aren't expected for this kind of tool given the annotations.

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 with sections for purpose, usage guidance, args, returns, and examples. Every section adds value and none are redundant. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover read-only behavior, the description is complete. It provides clear usage context, parameter semantics, and examples. It covers the main behavior (aggregating active security threats) and return content sufficiently.

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%, so the description fully carries parameter explanation. It defines query as an optional search term or threat type with examples ('malware', 'phishing'), priority as a filter by priority level, and limit as maximum insights with a default of 20. Examples further illustrate usage.

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: 'Investigate active security threats: aggregates SOC insights, indicators, affected assets, and timeline events.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from siblings by referencing assess_security_posture for policy compliance and triage_security_insight for triage actions.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'USE THIS for threat investigation and incident response. For policy compliance use assess_security_posture(). For triage actions use triage_security_insight().' This clearly states when to use this tool and direct alternatives.

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