misp_check_warninglists

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry the burden. It discloses the core action but does not mention output format, side effects, or whether it is a read-only operation, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with action, no wasted information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. However, it lacks information about return values or expected output, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 100% for the single parameter 'value', and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own description. Baseline of 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 the action 'Check if an observable value appears on any MISP warninglists', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that add, delete, or search events/attributes, as no other sibling checks warninglists.

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?

Usage is implied (when you have an observable and want to check against known benign lists), but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or exclusions is provided.

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