related_signatures

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the mechanism ('Uses pattern similarity') and disclosing the return format (JSON string with related signatures). No contradictions with annotations.

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 a purpose sentence, method explanation, requirement, and clearly labeled arguments and return. It is slightly longer than minimal but efficient, with no redundant information.

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 description covers the return value and a key requirement (Pro tier/Novyx Cloud). Given the presence of an output schema, it is mostly complete. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or pagination details, but acceptable for a simple read-only tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: signature_id as the input signature ID, and similarity_threshold with its range (0.0-1.0) and default (0.7). This adds critical meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 finds threat signatures related to a given signature using pattern similarity. It specifies the resource (threat signatures) and action (find related), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like correlate_threat or threat_match.

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 the requirement (Pro tier or Novyx Cloud) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, and does not reference sibling tools for comparison.

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