threatfox_search_family

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the operation's output categories (C2 IPs, domains, payload hashes) and implies a read-only query through 'Get'. It does not mention pagination, limits, or matching details, but for a simple search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, provides concrete examples, and states return types without any filler or redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the input should be, what action occurs, and what kinds of results are returned. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this 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?

The only parameter, 'family', is already fully documented in the input schema with an example ('Cobalt Strike'). The description adds the same examples but no additional semantic detail, 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('IOCs in ThreatFox'), and identifies the key selector ('for a specific malware family'). It also states what will be returned (C2 IPs, domains, payload hashes), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like threatfox_search_ioc or threatfox_search_tag.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need all IOCs associated with a named malware family. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended use case is clear.

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