correlate_threat

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Check if a threat correlates' is consistent with a read operation. The description adds context about cross-referencing the threat fingerprint against the network database, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling. The annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description adds moderate extra value.

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 (5 lines) and front-loaded with a clear one-line summary. It is structured with a purpose statement, a cross-referencing detail, prerequisites, and an args/returns section. Every sentence serves a purpose 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 has a single parameter, annotations indicating read-only, and an output schema (existence assumed), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input, and return. It lacks details on error conditions or format of the output, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for deep explanation. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 0% (parameter description is just 'Threat Event'), but the description states that 'threat_event' is a 'JSON string describing the threat to correlate.' This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it does not detail the expected structure or required fields. The description partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Check if a threat correlates with attacks on other tenants.' This uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('threat correlation'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'threat_match' (likely local) and 'threat_mitigate' (likely remediation).

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Pro tier or Novyx Cloud'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'threat_match' or 'threat_record'. The context of cross-tenant correlation is implied, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use rules are given.

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