Get Threat Context

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful semantic context—threat names are labels, not evidence, for custom rules—which helps the agent interpret results. Yet it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or any limitations of the timeline.

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 compact: two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the operational imperative clearly stated. Every clause adds value—the timeline purpose, the custom rule revelation, the before-verdict mandate, and the semantic warning about labels.

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?

The description nails the most critical contextual point—call before verdict—and interprets custom rule results. But it omits parameter semantics and doesn't clarify how this relates to sibling timeline/data tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure, but gaps around usage context remain.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter (threat_id, tenant). It mentions 'threat' generically but never tells the agent that threat_id is required, what format it should take, or how the optional tenant parameter affects the call. The description wholly fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('timeline of a threat') and adds a distinct detail: it reveals the custom rule name that triggered the threat. This is clear enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_storyline_events or get_threats.

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 gives explicit usage context with 'ALWAYS call before verdict', telling the agent when this tool must be invoked. It also provides interpretational guidance for Custom Rules. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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