list_hunting_queries

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

The description claims 'Returns max 100 results by default', but the input schema shows a limit parameter with default value 1000. This is a direct contradiction. No annotations are provided, so the description must be relied upon, and it is misleading.

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 that conveys purpose, filter options, and a key behavioral trait. No unnecessary text.

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 complexity (11 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of parameters like force_refresh, repository_owner, repository_name, repository_branch, and does not describe the response format. The contradiction with default limit also harms completeness.

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% (all 11 parameters are described in the schema). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond naming filter options and mentioning the default limit, but the limit description contradicts the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List and filter' and the resource 'Microsoft Sentinel hunting queries'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the unique resource type.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The usage is implied by the resource name, but lacking context for when to prefer this over other list tools.

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