list_global_helpers

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the return format ('paginated list of global helpers with metadata including descriptions and code') and includes permission requirements ('Permissions:{"all_of": ["View Rules"]}'). This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it doesn't mention rate limits or other constraints.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, definition of global helpers, and return format with permissions. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, resource definition, return format, pagination behavior, and permissions - everything needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('all global helpers from your Panther instance'), with a helpful definition of what global helpers are ('shared Python functions that can be used across multiple rules, policies, and other detections'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_global_helper' (singular) by indicating this lists all helpers rather than retrieving a specific one.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('List all global helpers') and implicitly distinguishes it from 'get_global_helper' (singular retrieval). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools for similar purposes beyond the implicit sibling distinction.

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