List latest Immediate Threats assessment IDs

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds 'recent runs' to clarify scope. However, it does not disclose potential nuances such as whether 'latest' means a single most recent run or all recent runs, or if IDs are unique across runs. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action 'Get list of IDs' and adds essential context with '(recent runs)'. No redundancy with the title or schema.

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 zero-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description conveys the core function and output type (a list of IDs). Minor ambiguity around 'latest' (single vs. multiple runs) exists, but the simplicity of the operation makes the description largely adequate. It could benefit from mentioning downstream usage, but that is not critical.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description has no responsibility to explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds no parameter-specific value, but the absence of parameters makes this acceptable.

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 specifies the action ('Get list of IDs') and the resource ('latest Immediate Threats assessments'), with the parenthetical '(recent runs)' adding temporal context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cymulate_immediate_threats_get_ioc_list or cymulate_immediate_threats_get_detection, which target different data.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it returns only IDs and not full assessment details, nor how it relates to other Immediate Threats endpoints. With many sibling tools, the lack of usage context is a clear gap.

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