Get Unresolved Threats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key filtering behavior—resolved threats are excluded—and the recency window, which is useful. But it does not mention ordering, pagination, tenant scope behavior, or any operational side effects beyond the basic fetch semantics.

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 only two sentences with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, and the secondary sentence adds useful context about triage and the resolved-threat exclusion.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions. An agent still needs to infer the meaning and acceptable values for tenant and limit, and there is no guidance on how this relates to get_threats or process_pending_alerts.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly explains hours_back via 'last N hours'. It adds no meaning for limit or tenant, which are left undocumented and potentially ambiguous for an agent.

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 ('Fetch') with a clear resource ('unresolved threats') and a time scope ('created in the last N hours'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating that resolved threats are excluded and framing it as the entry point for incident triage.

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?

It clearly positions the tool for incident triage and states that resolved threats are excluded, giving the agent context on when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like get_threats for broader threat queries, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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