threat_feed

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: anonymization, Pro tier requirement, and return format (JSON string). This provides valuable insight beyond 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 concise: a two-sentence header, then organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value; no waste.

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 simple params and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, parameters, return type, and access requirements. Complete for a read-only feed 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'hours' (look back window, default 24) and 'min_severity' (allowed values and default medium). Adds complete meaning.

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 'Get the anonymized threat intelligence feed' and 'Shows attack patterns detected across the Novyx network', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling threat tools like threat_signature or threat_match by focusing on the feed.

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 'Requires Pro tier or Novyx Cloud' as a prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, the context of 'feed' versus 'signature' or 'stats' makes usage clear.

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