cortex_run_responder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the tool as DESTRUCTIVE and explains real-world side effects and gating conditions, which is clear. However, it does not mention whether the action is asynchronous or what the return behavior is.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value, addressing purpose, subject, and key behavioral guardrails.

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 lack of output schema, the description covers essential behavioral aspects (destructive, guardrails) but does not explain what the tool returns (likely a job object) or how it integrates with the overall workflow. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'confirm' parameter (must be true to run) and 'parameters' (responder-specific), but these details are already partially in the schema. The added value is marginal.

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: 'Execute a responder action against a TheHive entity (case, task, artifact, alert).' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cortex_run_analyzer by explicitly mentioning 'responder' and the entity types.

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 mentions that the tool is gated behind CORTEX_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE env var and confirm=true, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., run_analyzer) or when not to use it.

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