lookup_malware_family

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates that the tool queries an external source (ThreatFox) and returns certain fields, but it does not disclose whether it is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise with two short paragraphs: a one-sentence overview followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value without 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, straightforward purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects. However, it could mention the output schema existence or error handling to be fully complete.

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 single parameter 'ioc' is thoroughly explained in the description: 'Indicator of Compromise — IP address, domain, URL, MD5/SHA256 hash'. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which only specifies a string type with no description.

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 verb 'look up' and the resource 'IOC against ThreatFox for malware family attribution'. It specifies the types of IOCs (IP, domain, URL, or hash) and mentions the output fields, making it distinct from sibling tools like check_ip_reputation or lookup_file_hash.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It implicitly suggests use for malware family attribution but lacks comparative context.

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