malpedia_actor_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read ('Get'), requires MALPEDIA_API_KEY, and lists the expected profile contents. However, it does not describe error behavior for unknown actor IDs, response format, or potential API limitations, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then provides concrete return-content details and the authentication requirement, making every word useful.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what the profile contains, notes the required credential, and establishes the tool's authoritative role. The input schema covers the parameter semantics, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already documents actor_id with concrete examples ('apt.apt29', 'crime.fin7') and the valid alternative form ('or actor name'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond framing the result as an actor profile, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a full Malpedia threat actor profile', and enumerates the exact contents returned (aliases, attribution, motivation, description, malware families). It further distinguishes the tool as the 'Authoritative source for actor-to-malware mapping', separating it from sibling tools like malpedia_family_profile.

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 clearly positions this tool as the authoritative actor-profile lookup and notes the API key requirement, giving the agent a clear sense of when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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