coordinated_attack_check

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Check if...' is consistent. The description adds detail about the analysis approach (timing, pattern similarity) but no additional behavioral traits like concurrency limits or data handling. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 well-structured with sections (purpose, analysis, requirements, args, returns) and is reasonably concise. The first sentence clearly states the purpose. A slight redundancy exists (e.g., the analysis line repeats the purpose), but overall it earns its length.

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 two-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description covers the input format, return type (JSON boolean), and basic analysis logic. It omits error conditions and edge cases, but is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It specifies that 'threat_events' is a JSON string of an array and 'time_window_hours' is optional with default 'auto'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's types and titles, though more detail on expected JSON format would improve it.

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 tool checks if multiple threat events are part of a coordinated attack, with a specific verb and resource. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'correlate_threat' and 'detect_campaign', but the analysis of timing and pattern similarity provides some distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'correlate_threat' or 'detect_campaign'. The description only mentions a prerequisite (Pro tier or Novyx Cloud), but does not specify contexts or exclusions.

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