List Immediate Threats with IOCs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds the behavioral qualifier 'available,' indicating that only assessments with IOCs are returned, which is useful but minimal. No additional context about pagination or response format is provided, but for a simple read-only list, this is acceptable.

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 concise sentence (9 words) that front-loads the action and resource. No filler or redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should ideally clarify the return shape more precisely. 'Get assessments that have IOCs' implies a list of assessments, but it does not explicitly state that, nor does it explain the relationship to 'Immediate Threats' from the title. For a simple list tool with no params and strong safety annotations, it is minimally adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 tool has no parameters, so the schema fully covers parameters (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline 4 is appropriate; there is nothing missing.

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 'Get assessments that have IOCs (indicators of compromise) available,' which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (assessments with IOCs). The definition of the acronym adds clarity. However, it could more explicitly align with the title 'List Immediate Threats with IOCs' to distinguish from sibling get tools like get_detection or get_latest_ids, though the 'with IOCs' qualifier does differentiate.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus the many sibling immediate_threats tools (e.g., get_latest_ids, get_detection), nor any exclusions or preconditions.

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