predict_threats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the projection horizons and aggregate scope, but lacks details on performance impact, rate limits, whether the operation is read-only, or behavior when no servers exist.

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 13-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and presents key information without any fluff or unnecessary words.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary function and time horizons. It is missing details on return format or error handling, but remains sufficiently complete for basic selection.

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% (one parameter fully described). The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides ('Filter to a specific server name... If omitted, predicts for all').

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 action ('Generate threat forecast') and the resource ('all configured MCP servers') with specific time horizons (30/90/365-day). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'threat_forecast_for_server' which likely targets a single server.

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 implies use for all servers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'threat_forecast_for_server'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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